What do you think?
Rate this book
Addio ai ghiacci: Rapporto dall'Artico
Nuova edizione aggiornata con una postfazione dell'autore.
Il Polo si sta inesorabilmente sciogliendo. È un fatto col quale dobbiamo confrontarci. Lo scioglimento dei ghiacci è andato aumentando drammaticamente negli ultimi trent’anni. E i ghiacci del Polo sono la cartina al tornasole dello stato di salute del clima del pianeta e tanto più diminuiscono, tanto meno calore viene riflesso verso lo spazio dal loro candore, peggiorando ulteriormente la situazione in un circolo vizioso. L’accelerazione del fenomeno è impressionante, ma le autorità politiche
non sembrano aver ancora realizzato l’enorme pericolo che ciò comporta , ovvero che il destino dell’Artico è la miccia che potrebbe innescare una spirale che finirebbe col coinvolgere il mondo intero.
Addio ai ghiacci, uscito per la prima volta nel 2017 e ora aggiornato agli ultimissimi dati, contiene tutti i fatti incontrovertibili dell’evidenza scientifica, minuziosamente raccolti, spiegati e argomentati in maniera estremamente comprensibile per chiunque: non dà scampo. È un appello accorato e competente che non deve cadere nel vuoto.
Il Polo si sta inesorabilmente sciogliendo. È un fatto col quale dobbiamo confrontarci. Lo scioglimento dei ghiacci è andato aumentando drammaticamente negli ultimi trent’anni. E i ghiacci del Polo sono la cartina al tornasole dello stato di salute del clima del pianeta e tanto più diminuiscono, tanto meno calore viene riflesso verso lo spazio dal loro candore, peggiorando ulteriormente la situazione in un circolo vizioso. L’accelerazione del fenomeno è impressionante, ma le autorità politiche
non sembrano aver ancora realizzato l’enorme pericolo che ciò comporta , ovvero che il destino dell’Artico è la miccia che potrebbe innescare una spirale che finirebbe col coinvolgere il mondo intero.
Addio ai ghiacci, uscito per la prima volta nel 2017 e ora aggiornato agli ultimissimi dati, contiene tutti i fatti incontrovertibili dell’evidenza scientifica, minuziosamente raccolti, spiegati e argomentati in maniera estremamente comprensibile per chiunque: non dà scampo. È un appello accorato e competente che non deve cadere nel vuoto.
286 pages, Paperback
First published May 24, 2016
77 people are currently reading
1203 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
December 17, 2019
This is a marvelous, short book by the leading expert on the Arctic. Peter Wadhams interleaves his own participation in research experiments with his narrative on climate change. He shows his own private viewpoint, and is extremely troubled by the impending catastrophes that climate change will bring.
The climate record shows periodicities every 100,000 years or so. Temperature, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) concentrations show a sawtooth pattern. Each period shows a sharp upswing followed by a gradual decay. The reason for this is that it is far easier to melt away an ice sheet than to grow a new one. Some people argue that human-caused warming will prevent the next ice age, and that is good. The problem is, we are on track to overshoot, and exceed the fastest warming in the Earth's history.
When CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rose from 180 to 250 ppm between glacial and interlacial ages, temperatures rose by 6 degrees Centigrade. Extrapolating to a doubling in CO2 concentration, equilibrium temperatures should increase by 7.8 degrees C. This hasn't happened yet, because the ocean absorbs much of the heat. So warming is slow, but even if CO2 stabilizes, temperatures would continue to rise for a while.
While global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C in the last 100 years, temperatures in the Arctic have risen 2.4 degrees C. The Arctic is a bellweather for the future of the planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected a sea level rise to the year 2100, but underestimated the rise from several mechanisms. They did not include glacier melt, and their linear extrapolation into the future ignored various feedback loops that will lead to a nonlinear increase in sea level. Sea and land ice are melting at an exponential rate.
One of the greatest immediate risks to the human race is the release of Arctic seabed methane. Before 2005, Arctic shelf waters were shielded by year-round ice cover. Now these waters are ice-free in the summer, and the water is warming up above the melting point. This is an entirely new situation. This is observed to coincide with a sudden release of methane, which 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas! Ironically, the oil industry could ameliorate this problem by drilling a network of wells covering the East Siberian Sea. The thawing of terrestrial permafrost will release even more methane, but more slowly.
Wadhams explains why climate change brings more extreme weather events. He discusses various approaches to ameliorate the impending catastrophes; carbon extraction from the atmosphere, the use of thorium nuclear reactors, and geo-engineering approaches. And he talks about the motivations for climate change deniers.
This is an important book on the subject of climate change. It is a complicated subject, but Wadhams explains the physical mechanisms very well, but the narration remains throughout at the level of an informed, non-scientific reader. My only criticism concerns a short digression into his radical view of international politics.
The climate record shows periodicities every 100,000 years or so. Temperature, carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) concentrations show a sawtooth pattern. Each period shows a sharp upswing followed by a gradual decay. The reason for this is that it is far easier to melt away an ice sheet than to grow a new one. Some people argue that human-caused warming will prevent the next ice age, and that is good. The problem is, we are on track to overshoot, and exceed the fastest warming in the Earth's history.
When CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rose from 180 to 250 ppm between glacial and interlacial ages, temperatures rose by 6 degrees Centigrade. Extrapolating to a doubling in CO2 concentration, equilibrium temperatures should increase by 7.8 degrees C. This hasn't happened yet, because the ocean absorbs much of the heat. So warming is slow, but even if CO2 stabilizes, temperatures would continue to rise for a while.
While global temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C in the last 100 years, temperatures in the Arctic have risen 2.4 degrees C. The Arctic is a bellweather for the future of the planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected a sea level rise to the year 2100, but underestimated the rise from several mechanisms. They did not include glacier melt, and their linear extrapolation into the future ignored various feedback loops that will lead to a nonlinear increase in sea level. Sea and land ice are melting at an exponential rate.
One of the greatest immediate risks to the human race is the release of Arctic seabed methane. Before 2005, Arctic shelf waters were shielded by year-round ice cover. Now these waters are ice-free in the summer, and the water is warming up above the melting point. This is an entirely new situation. This is observed to coincide with a sudden release of methane, which 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas! Ironically, the oil industry could ameliorate this problem by drilling a network of wells covering the East Siberian Sea. The thawing of terrestrial permafrost will release even more methane, but more slowly.
Wadhams explains why climate change brings more extreme weather events. He discusses various approaches to ameliorate the impending catastrophes; carbon extraction from the atmosphere, the use of thorium nuclear reactors, and geo-engineering approaches. And he talks about the motivations for climate change deniers.
This is an important book on the subject of climate change. It is a complicated subject, but Wadhams explains the physical mechanisms very well, but the narration remains throughout at the level of an informed, non-scientific reader. My only criticism concerns a short digression into his radical view of international politics.
September 1, 2016
This is a really important book from a highly experienced researcher on the Arctic ice and the impact of climate change - but it falls down as popular science. A lot of material in the introductory chapters feels far too much like the early parts of a textbook. Eskimos may not really have vast numbers of words for snow (the claim seems to be based more on the word formation processes of different languages, not word count), but ice scientists clearly have all sorts of different words for ice types and formations and Wadhams feels the need to define them all, even though most will never be seen again. It doesn't help get the message across, it gets in the way.
The other big problem is that Wadhams clearly has very little idea of the knowledge level of non-scientists - so, for example, he makes the remark 'the Fourier series, by which any function can be split into a set of harmonics' without thinking through that anyone who knows what a function being split into harmonics involves, probably knows about Fourier analysis - it's a non-definition.
Part way through the book, we read about the author's experience of being on a submarine under the Arctic ice when an explosion killed two sailors and put everyone's life at risk. Never have I seen a better example of the importance of narrative in non-fiction. Suddenly, the whole book comes alive. But sadly this section is labelled a 'personal interlude' and in a few pages we are back to dryly related facts. I am not saying that all the book had to be based on personal experience (I generally find science books like this slightly nauseating), it's just that the author needs to be aware throughout that he is telling a story, shaping the way information is put across, and this just doesn't happen elsewhere.
The message of A Farewell to Ice, though not new, is indeed very important. There is zero doubt the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes warming (along with other greenhouse gasses). It isn't about consensus, as Wadhams clearly shows, it is basic physics. There is also zero doubt that human activity has raised the greenhouse gas levels. The only doubt is over how fast and to what degree (literally) the warming will occur - but with the unique insight that Wadhams brings from his work with Arctic ice, we have good evidence that it is likely to be a problem sooner rather than later. The sad thing is, though, that without the kind of engaging writing seen briefly in that interlude, the only audience listening to this preaching will be those who are already converted.
This a shame, because there is still a lot of good stuff here. The other place the book comes alive is in the last few pages, where the author makes an appeal to do more about climate change - but by then, many readers might have turned off. Wadhams berates 'green' organisations like Greenpeace for opposing two potential tools - nuclear power and geoengineering. He makes it very clear that it simply isn't enough to reduce carbon emissions. It's too late for that alone to do the job. We have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And Wadhams also emphasises that current technology is nowhere near good enough - we need a Manhattan Project scale effort. But such an effort is likely to come when we are feeling the delayed effects much more, and when many millions are suffering or dying. I perhaps shouldn't criticise Wadhams' book, as it will still provide ammunition for thinking environmentalists (as opposed to knee-jerk greens) - I just wish the bulk of the book put the message across better.
The other big problem is that Wadhams clearly has very little idea of the knowledge level of non-scientists - so, for example, he makes the remark 'the Fourier series, by which any function can be split into a set of harmonics' without thinking through that anyone who knows what a function being split into harmonics involves, probably knows about Fourier analysis - it's a non-definition.
Part way through the book, we read about the author's experience of being on a submarine under the Arctic ice when an explosion killed two sailors and put everyone's life at risk. Never have I seen a better example of the importance of narrative in non-fiction. Suddenly, the whole book comes alive. But sadly this section is labelled a 'personal interlude' and in a few pages we are back to dryly related facts. I am not saying that all the book had to be based on personal experience (I generally find science books like this slightly nauseating), it's just that the author needs to be aware throughout that he is telling a story, shaping the way information is put across, and this just doesn't happen elsewhere.
The message of A Farewell to Ice, though not new, is indeed very important. There is zero doubt the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes warming (along with other greenhouse gasses). It isn't about consensus, as Wadhams clearly shows, it is basic physics. There is also zero doubt that human activity has raised the greenhouse gas levels. The only doubt is over how fast and to what degree (literally) the warming will occur - but with the unique insight that Wadhams brings from his work with Arctic ice, we have good evidence that it is likely to be a problem sooner rather than later. The sad thing is, though, that without the kind of engaging writing seen briefly in that interlude, the only audience listening to this preaching will be those who are already converted.
This a shame, because there is still a lot of good stuff here. The other place the book comes alive is in the last few pages, where the author makes an appeal to do more about climate change - but by then, many readers might have turned off. Wadhams berates 'green' organisations like Greenpeace for opposing two potential tools - nuclear power and geoengineering. He makes it very clear that it simply isn't enough to reduce carbon emissions. It's too late for that alone to do the job. We have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And Wadhams also emphasises that current technology is nowhere near good enough - we need a Manhattan Project scale effort. But such an effort is likely to come when we are feeling the delayed effects much more, and when many millions are suffering or dying. I perhaps shouldn't criticise Wadhams' book, as it will still provide ammunition for thinking environmentalists (as opposed to knee-jerk greens) - I just wish the bulk of the book put the message across better.
October 20, 2020
Wadhams è fondamentalmente un glaciologo con una forte preparazione in fisica. Questo saggio, a tratti pesante per gli argomenti, mai per la scrittura, è estremamente rigoroso e non fa che rimarcare quanto da tempo il mio spirito critico mi dice: non c'è più tempo per evitare l'eccessivo riscaldamento globale. Per eccessivo intendo ben oltre i 4°C che sono lo scenario peggiore del IPPC. Dovendo adempiere per lavoro al protocollo di Kyoto, strumento estremamente inefficace nel combattimento contro il riscaldamento globale di origine umana (in fondo è la compravendita dell'aria fritta, estremo successo del capitalismo finanziario) seguo da oltre un decennio la faccenda. Sebbene le previsioni di Wadhams possano apparire eccessivamente pessimistiche e in parte non si siano ancora avverate (prevedeva la riduzione della copertura del ghiaccio artico sotto 1 milione di kmq entro il 2020, cosa che non è ancora avvenuta) credo che non sia molto lontano dalla verità.
Specialmente quando parla della grande minaccia dei clarati, della liberazione nell'atmosfera di questo metano al momento trattenuto da gelo e pressione nell'artico. Il feedback positivo del riscaldamento globale che questa liberazione genererà nei prossimi due decenni, forse meno, avrà devastanti impatti su tutte le società umane.
Perché il bello dell'antropocene è che comunque vadano le cose, a essere minacciate sono le società umane, non la vita sulla Terra. Quella sopravviverà, ma quando saranno molto più diffuse di oggi le guerre e le migrazioni di decine di milioni di persone per fame e sete (oggi Siria, Libia, Mali, Ciad; domani Marocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brasile, Filippine e probabilmente Spagna, Portogallo, Italia, Grecia) e una guerra nucleare sarà più di una concreta possibilità, non ci sarà via di fuga.
A differenza dell'autore, che propone interventi concreti e effettivi di sottrazione di CO2 dall'atmosfera, io non credo che questi saranno sufficienti ad evitare il riscaldamento globale o a contenerlo sotto i 6-8°C medi, ed oltre alla attiva riforestazione, specialmente nelle zone tropicali del mondo, nonché alla bioingegneria e al massiccio controllo delle nascite nelle nazioni sottosviluppate (brutto termine, ma rende bene il concetto dell'universalità della stupidità umana) servirà lo sviluppo di una diversa consapevolezza della vita e dell'evoluzione, e l'abbandono di ogni forma di religione, per uscirne più forti come umanità.
Insomma, ci attendono un paio di decenni interessanti, nel senso della maledizione cinese associata a questa affermazione. Oltre non mi pronuncio, perché non credo che camperò così a lingo.
Comunque, almeno in Italia, prepariamoci a dire addio all'abitabilità delle alte valli alpine e delle basse pianure. Prepariamoci a dire addio a Venezia (non serve il Mose, servirà il Noe) e alla pianura pontina, a Chioggia come a Comacchio, a Pisa come a vedere il mare fuori dalle mura di Lucca e di Milano.
Una ultima considerazione riguarda il perché non credo che verranno effettuati interventi di riduzione della CO2 e del metano emessi in atmosfera. Forse è un'idea un poco da complottari, però, chi ci guadagnerà dal cambiamento che sta sopravvenendo? Dove sono le grandi distese di terra che diventeranno abitabili nei prossimi decenni, col surriscaldamento globale? In Siberia e in Canada principalmente, e nessuno al momento ha la possibilità di sfidare o di contrattare da un punto di vantaggio o parità quelle che sono ancora le due maggiori potenze militari e nucleari del mondo, gli USA e la Russia. Ci hanno avuto in pugno per oltre mezzo secolo, e ci avranno in pugno anche in futuro, alla faccia di Cina e India.
Specialmente quando parla della grande minaccia dei clarati, della liberazione nell'atmosfera di questo metano al momento trattenuto da gelo e pressione nell'artico. Il feedback positivo del riscaldamento globale che questa liberazione genererà nei prossimi due decenni, forse meno, avrà devastanti impatti su tutte le società umane.
Perché il bello dell'antropocene è che comunque vadano le cose, a essere minacciate sono le società umane, non la vita sulla Terra. Quella sopravviverà, ma quando saranno molto più diffuse di oggi le guerre e le migrazioni di decine di milioni di persone per fame e sete (oggi Siria, Libia, Mali, Ciad; domani Marocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brasile, Filippine e probabilmente Spagna, Portogallo, Italia, Grecia) e una guerra nucleare sarà più di una concreta possibilità, non ci sarà via di fuga.
A differenza dell'autore, che propone interventi concreti e effettivi di sottrazione di CO2 dall'atmosfera, io non credo che questi saranno sufficienti ad evitare il riscaldamento globale o a contenerlo sotto i 6-8°C medi, ed oltre alla attiva riforestazione, specialmente nelle zone tropicali del mondo, nonché alla bioingegneria e al massiccio controllo delle nascite nelle nazioni sottosviluppate (brutto termine, ma rende bene il concetto dell'universalità della stupidità umana) servirà lo sviluppo di una diversa consapevolezza della vita e dell'evoluzione, e l'abbandono di ogni forma di religione, per uscirne più forti come umanità.
Insomma, ci attendono un paio di decenni interessanti, nel senso della maledizione cinese associata a questa affermazione. Oltre non mi pronuncio, perché non credo che camperò così a lingo.
Comunque, almeno in Italia, prepariamoci a dire addio all'abitabilità delle alte valli alpine e delle basse pianure. Prepariamoci a dire addio a Venezia (non serve il Mose, servirà il Noe) e alla pianura pontina, a Chioggia come a Comacchio, a Pisa come a vedere il mare fuori dalle mura di Lucca e di Milano.
Una ultima considerazione riguarda il perché non credo che verranno effettuati interventi di riduzione della CO2 e del metano emessi in atmosfera. Forse è un'idea un poco da complottari, però, chi ci guadagnerà dal cambiamento che sta sopravvenendo? Dove sono le grandi distese di terra che diventeranno abitabili nei prossimi decenni, col surriscaldamento globale? In Siberia e in Canada principalmente, e nessuno al momento ha la possibilità di sfidare o di contrattare da un punto di vantaggio o parità quelle che sono ancora le due maggiori potenze militari e nucleari del mondo, gli USA e la Russia. Ci hanno avuto in pugno per oltre mezzo secolo, e ci avranno in pugno anche in futuro, alla faccia di Cina e India.
February 19, 2022
a very scientific report filled with technical details. A must-read. Dr. Peter Wadhams is Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge and Director of the Scott Amundsen Polar Research Centre. He has spent 50 years doing annual expeditions to both the Arctic and the Antarctic, traversing the ice by ship, plane, observatory tent, and nuclear submarine. He circumnavigated the world on a research ship that went from Canada to around Africa. To belabor a point, among a league of experts, he is like Dr. Expert Expert.
And his warning is ominous. All the signs are pointing down. Albedo feedback loops will ensure that once the snow and ice are gone, water will keep warming instead of reflecting solar energy back out the atmosphere. Current IPCC estimates of a 2-4 C degree rise are pretty conservative: it could hit as high as 7.8. Methane pulses hidden underneath the ice could be exposed and accelerate global warming, especially since methane is 23-100 times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming.
The effects will be catastophic. It's not just a matter of elevated sea levels that we could raise walls against. Weather will become extreme, violent and unpredictable-- which will be unsuitable for the stable conditions and seasons required for agricultural production. At the same time, populations will increase and huge swathes of the planet will be too warm for habitation-- both causing an increased demand for energy, and food. If the food is not there, people may starve. Rich countries will try to establish early fiefdoms in the breadbaskets of the world, such as mild locales in Africa. If there is stress on water resources, there will be societal upheavals and violence. And as people continue to need resources, forests will be further razed to make way for farming or animal husbandry, depleting natural resources further and eliminating the resources we need to mitigate climate change-- causing a further runaway effect. This is the vision that Dr. Wadhams has to face. The scary thing is even if we stop all greenhouse gas production now, we would still be facing a temperature increase. At the current trend of minimal effort at all, we might be headed for an apocalypse for human civilization as we know it. We would have to huddle precariously at the few bastions of the globe that could still support comfortable living-- and those habitable spots will surely not be secured or distributed equitably. At the face of this human destruction-- the doom of the human experiment-- what can compare. That's why this book, and Dr. Wadhams' work, are so important.
There is also so much science in this book if one is willing to spend time munching on the details-- info on the different types of ice, the formation of glaciers, the history of Earth's glaciation, the cycles of climate, the different feedback loops, etc.
And his warning is ominous. All the signs are pointing down. Albedo feedback loops will ensure that once the snow and ice are gone, water will keep warming instead of reflecting solar energy back out the atmosphere. Current IPCC estimates of a 2-4 C degree rise are pretty conservative: it could hit as high as 7.8. Methane pulses hidden underneath the ice could be exposed and accelerate global warming, especially since methane is 23-100 times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming.
The effects will be catastophic. It's not just a matter of elevated sea levels that we could raise walls against. Weather will become extreme, violent and unpredictable-- which will be unsuitable for the stable conditions and seasons required for agricultural production. At the same time, populations will increase and huge swathes of the planet will be too warm for habitation-- both causing an increased demand for energy, and food. If the food is not there, people may starve. Rich countries will try to establish early fiefdoms in the breadbaskets of the world, such as mild locales in Africa. If there is stress on water resources, there will be societal upheavals and violence. And as people continue to need resources, forests will be further razed to make way for farming or animal husbandry, depleting natural resources further and eliminating the resources we need to mitigate climate change-- causing a further runaway effect. This is the vision that Dr. Wadhams has to face. The scary thing is even if we stop all greenhouse gas production now, we would still be facing a temperature increase. At the current trend of minimal effort at all, we might be headed for an apocalypse for human civilization as we know it. We would have to huddle precariously at the few bastions of the globe that could still support comfortable living-- and those habitable spots will surely not be secured or distributed equitably. At the face of this human destruction-- the doom of the human experiment-- what can compare. That's why this book, and Dr. Wadhams' work, are so important.
There is also so much science in this book if one is willing to spend time munching on the details-- info on the different types of ice, the formation of glaciers, the history of Earth's glaciation, the cycles of climate, the different feedback loops, etc.
July 10, 2021
In 1968, the Apollo-8 mission orbited the moon, and took the first photo of the Earth rising above the moon’s horizon. In that photo, Earth was white on both the top and bottom. Today, when it’s summer in the northern hemisphere, the distant view shows a white bottom and a blue top. An ancient ice sheet is becoming an ocean. With a sloppy stampede of well-intended, self-defeating, highly-destructive booboos, human cleverness has changed the planet.
In 1970, Peter Wadhams began studying cool stuff in polar regions — sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets, snow, and permafrost. When he began his 47 years of research, polar ice was not a headline making subject that begged for the full attention of the world. He is now among the world’s top experts in the field. His book, A Farewell to Ice, sums up what he has learned over the years. It provides an understandable, uncomfortable, and important introduction to the Climate Crisis.
Arctic ice is precious, because it nurtures the existence of a climate that enables complex biodiversity. But things are changing now. When incoming sunbeams hit white regions, some of the heat is reflected away from the planet, back into outer space. This ability to reflect is called albedo. Fresh snow, which is very white, reflects 80 to 90 percent of incoming heat. So, it has an albedo of 0.8 to 0.9. Ice that has been bare for a while accumulates soot and dust, which makes it darker, less reflective. It has an albedo of 0.4 to 0.7. Sea water and dry land are darker, and absorb more incoming heat. Open water has an albedo of 0.1.
When albedo reflectivity weakens, more heat can enter the atmosphere, and accumulate. Ice gets thinner, breaks up, and retreats. So, more sunlight hits more open water, which absorbs more heat. More ice that used to exist year-round now melts away during the warmer months. The duration of ice-free summer periods is lengthening. This vicious circle is called the “Arctic Death Spiral.”
Glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice have existed for thousands of years, leftovers from previous ice ages. Once they are gone, they will not return for a very long time, if ever. They were still in pretty good shape at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If human population and lifestyles had remained at pre-industrial levels, the Arctic might still be an awesomely cool and stable region.
The atmosphere is precious. It helps to retain adequate heat, but not too much, like a greenhouse. While it allows some heat to escape into outer space, it allows even more solar heat to enter. If Earth had no atmosphere, it would be a lifeless frozen planet. The moon is a frigid place because it has no atmosphere, and its average temperature is -4°F (-18°C). Earth’s lovely atmosphere enables an average temperature of 59°F (15°C).
This atmospheric greenhouse enables our survival, because life is possible when it’s warm enough for water to exist in liquid form. Every living cell contains water. The greenhouse also prevents most seawater from freezing. Unfrozen oceans absorb incoming solar heat and retain it, which is good and normal, up to a point. Right now, ocean absorption is what’s (temporarily) saving our asses. Eventually, the oceans will get too warm, which will impact marine ecosystems, and everything else. Eventually, the climate will get more unstable. Agricultural systems will get dizzy and wobbly. Life will become more exciting.
There are several greenhouse gases that help the atmosphere trap heat, including ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane. Wadhams is especially concerned about carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), because of their primary role in encouraging warmer temperatures. CO2 is responsible for about 55 percent of the greenhouse warming issues.
Some CO2 emissions can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. A lot of it is absorbed by plant life and oceans. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels in the air were 280 ppm (parts per million). Today, they are 421 ppm. Current trends suggest that in 75 to 100 years, levels will double (800+ ppm). In oceans, CO2 dissolves and forms carbonic acid, which damages the shells of sea critters, and hammers coral reefs. Wizards have calculated that oceans now absorb over one million tons of manmade CO2 every hour! [LINK] What could possibly go wrong?
CO2 is precious. If there was no CO2, there would be no plants or animals. During photosynthesis, all plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen, which all animals need. We’re now learning that it’s possible to have too much of a good thing. Wadhams shouts (in bold text), “adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere inevitably causes a temperature rise. And, the more you add, the greater the temperature rise.”
It won’t be long before the North Pole will be ice-free for the first time in tens of thousands of years. In the ’70s, summertime Arctic sea ice covered over 3 million square miles (7.8 million km2), an area larger than the continent of Australia. In 2012, it covered just 1.3 million square miles (much more open water). Climate change is happening most rapidly in the Arctic. Their summers are now having some horror show heat waves. The Southern Hemisphere has been less vulnerable to ice age periods, because it has less dry land, and much more heat-retaining ocean area.
So, as Arctic snow and ice retreats, albedo declines, more sunbeams arrive, temperatures rise, melting increases, and on and on… This is called a feedback loop. Our emissions have created growing imbalances that now enable self-perpetuating feedback loops. “We are fast approaching the stage when climate change will be playing the tune for us while we stand by and watch helplessly, with our reductions in CO2 emissions having no effect.” This is what is known as runaway warming.
Concentrations of methane are also rising in the atmosphere. They have risen from 700 ppb (parts per billion) in preindustrial times, up to 1,940 ppb recently. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but it only stays in the atmosphere for 7 to 10 years, during which time it is 100+ times more harmful than CO2. Then, it breaks down into CO2. When methane’s brief existence is calculated within a hundred year timeframe, its impact is 23 times worse than the hundred year impact of CO2.
In addition to airborne methane, massive amounts of it are stored in seabed permafrost, in the form of methane hydrates — flammable frozen crystals of methane and water. When the permafrost thaws, the hydrate crystals dissolve, and the methane is released. Permafrost is soil that has been frozen for years, often thousands of years. Deposits can be hundreds of yards (or meters) deep. With regard to warming and methane, Wadhams highlights two daunting issues. One is offshore permafrost (underwater), and the other is terrestrial permafrost (under dry land).
Offshore permafrost is a dire concern for Wadhams, because it has the potential to be the source of a monstrous release of methane within a few decades. This permafrost formed on dry land thousands of years ago, when sea levels were much lower. Today, it is buried beneath seabed sediments. It contains substantial amounts of methane hydrates, and it is especially vulnerable to thawing as sea ice retreats, and water temperatures rise.
The East Siberian Sea includes 810,000 square miles (2.1 million km2) of shallow water, most of which is less than 130 feet (40 m) deep. In the good old days, the sea used to be covered year round with surface ice, which kept the water frigid. This changed in 2005, when summer sea ice began disappearing, which exposed seawater to the atmosphere for the first time. Sunlight could now penetrate directly into the water and warm it. Shallow waters warmed faster than deeper areas.
For the first time in tens of thousands of years, warm water could reach the seabed, causing frozen sediments to thaw. Then, as the underlying permafrost thaws, large plumes of methane bubbles are released. In deeper waters, the rising methane oxidizes, and the plume disappears before reaching the surface. In the shallows, methane makes it to the surface, and is released into the atmosphere.
In the entire Arctic Ocean, the methane hydrate deposits are estimated to contain 13 times the amount of carbon currently present in the atmosphere. Wadhams believes that “the risk of an Arctic seabed methane pulse is one of the greatest immediate risks facing the human race.” Russian scientists on site calculate that the probability of this is at least 50 percent. Scientists skeptical about the possible methane pulse have one thing in common — none have participated in research on the East Siberian Sea. In a 2020 article, Wadhams revealed that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was home to high concentrations of methane hydrates in permafrost layers that are up to 1.25 miles (2 km) thick. [LINK]
Terrestrial permafrost is buried under dry land across the Arctic. It is found within a region of 7.3 million square miles (19 million km2) — something like the combined land area of Russia and Argentina. As Arctic temperatures soar, the permafrost is rapidly thawing. Soils in this permafrost contain lots of organic carbon, plant material that lived long ago, but froze before fully decomposing. Unlike offshore permafrost, terrestrial permafrost does not contain methane while frozen. But when it thaws and decays, chemical processes then create CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Wadhams strongly suspects that a massive seabed methane pulse may occur in the next decade or so. One way or another, fast or slow, the permafrost will inevitably thaw. Nobody questions that the climate is warming. The amount of carbon stored in the offshore permafrost is estimated to be 50 gigatons, but the terrestrial permafrost is estimated to hold 1,400 to 1,700 gigatons (30 times more than offshore). Wadhams believes that most of the massive greenhouse emissions are likely to take place by the end of the century, at the latest.
So, that’s a bit about what this book is about. When you sit down with a copy from your friendly local library, you’ll learn much more. Wadhams is profoundly concerned about the path we’re on, and is distinctly gloomy about where we’re headed. He admits that the technological miracles that will successfully end the Arctic Death Spiral have yet to be invented, and may never be.
Humankind remains largely clueless, whilst insanely committed to preserving our maximum waste lifestyle, as long as possible, by any means necessary. Only dangerous heretics talk about sensibly turning stuff OFF. We are wading neck deep in happy talk, misinformation, gibberish, and magical thinking. The jungle drums keep talking about “solving the Climate Crisis.” The spotlights are aimed at solar panels, electric cars, and LED light bulbs, not melting permafrost. What could possibly go wrong?
In 1970, Peter Wadhams began studying cool stuff in polar regions — sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets, snow, and permafrost. When he began his 47 years of research, polar ice was not a headline making subject that begged for the full attention of the world. He is now among the world’s top experts in the field. His book, A Farewell to Ice, sums up what he has learned over the years. It provides an understandable, uncomfortable, and important introduction to the Climate Crisis.
Arctic ice is precious, because it nurtures the existence of a climate that enables complex biodiversity. But things are changing now. When incoming sunbeams hit white regions, some of the heat is reflected away from the planet, back into outer space. This ability to reflect is called albedo. Fresh snow, which is very white, reflects 80 to 90 percent of incoming heat. So, it has an albedo of 0.8 to 0.9. Ice that has been bare for a while accumulates soot and dust, which makes it darker, less reflective. It has an albedo of 0.4 to 0.7. Sea water and dry land are darker, and absorb more incoming heat. Open water has an albedo of 0.1.
When albedo reflectivity weakens, more heat can enter the atmosphere, and accumulate. Ice gets thinner, breaks up, and retreats. So, more sunlight hits more open water, which absorbs more heat. More ice that used to exist year-round now melts away during the warmer months. The duration of ice-free summer periods is lengthening. This vicious circle is called the “Arctic Death Spiral.”
Glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice have existed for thousands of years, leftovers from previous ice ages. Once they are gone, they will not return for a very long time, if ever. They were still in pretty good shape at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If human population and lifestyles had remained at pre-industrial levels, the Arctic might still be an awesomely cool and stable region.
The atmosphere is precious. It helps to retain adequate heat, but not too much, like a greenhouse. While it allows some heat to escape into outer space, it allows even more solar heat to enter. If Earth had no atmosphere, it would be a lifeless frozen planet. The moon is a frigid place because it has no atmosphere, and its average temperature is -4°F (-18°C). Earth’s lovely atmosphere enables an average temperature of 59°F (15°C).
This atmospheric greenhouse enables our survival, because life is possible when it’s warm enough for water to exist in liquid form. Every living cell contains water. The greenhouse also prevents most seawater from freezing. Unfrozen oceans absorb incoming solar heat and retain it, which is good and normal, up to a point. Right now, ocean absorption is what’s (temporarily) saving our asses. Eventually, the oceans will get too warm, which will impact marine ecosystems, and everything else. Eventually, the climate will get more unstable. Agricultural systems will get dizzy and wobbly. Life will become more exciting.
There are several greenhouse gases that help the atmosphere trap heat, including ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane. Wadhams is especially concerned about carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), because of their primary role in encouraging warmer temperatures. CO2 is responsible for about 55 percent of the greenhouse warming issues.
Some CO2 emissions can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. A lot of it is absorbed by plant life and oceans. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels in the air were 280 ppm (parts per million). Today, they are 421 ppm. Current trends suggest that in 75 to 100 years, levels will double (800+ ppm). In oceans, CO2 dissolves and forms carbonic acid, which damages the shells of sea critters, and hammers coral reefs. Wizards have calculated that oceans now absorb over one million tons of manmade CO2 every hour! [LINK] What could possibly go wrong?
CO2 is precious. If there was no CO2, there would be no plants or animals. During photosynthesis, all plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen, which all animals need. We’re now learning that it’s possible to have too much of a good thing. Wadhams shouts (in bold text), “adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere inevitably causes a temperature rise. And, the more you add, the greater the temperature rise.”
It won’t be long before the North Pole will be ice-free for the first time in tens of thousands of years. In the ’70s, summertime Arctic sea ice covered over 3 million square miles (7.8 million km2), an area larger than the continent of Australia. In 2012, it covered just 1.3 million square miles (much more open water). Climate change is happening most rapidly in the Arctic. Their summers are now having some horror show heat waves. The Southern Hemisphere has been less vulnerable to ice age periods, because it has less dry land, and much more heat-retaining ocean area.
So, as Arctic snow and ice retreats, albedo declines, more sunbeams arrive, temperatures rise, melting increases, and on and on… This is called a feedback loop. Our emissions have created growing imbalances that now enable self-perpetuating feedback loops. “We are fast approaching the stage when climate change will be playing the tune for us while we stand by and watch helplessly, with our reductions in CO2 emissions having no effect.” This is what is known as runaway warming.
Concentrations of methane are also rising in the atmosphere. They have risen from 700 ppb (parts per billion) in preindustrial times, up to 1,940 ppb recently. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but it only stays in the atmosphere for 7 to 10 years, during which time it is 100+ times more harmful than CO2. Then, it breaks down into CO2. When methane’s brief existence is calculated within a hundred year timeframe, its impact is 23 times worse than the hundred year impact of CO2.
In addition to airborne methane, massive amounts of it are stored in seabed permafrost, in the form of methane hydrates — flammable frozen crystals of methane and water. When the permafrost thaws, the hydrate crystals dissolve, and the methane is released. Permafrost is soil that has been frozen for years, often thousands of years. Deposits can be hundreds of yards (or meters) deep. With regard to warming and methane, Wadhams highlights two daunting issues. One is offshore permafrost (underwater), and the other is terrestrial permafrost (under dry land).
Offshore permafrost is a dire concern for Wadhams, because it has the potential to be the source of a monstrous release of methane within a few decades. This permafrost formed on dry land thousands of years ago, when sea levels were much lower. Today, it is buried beneath seabed sediments. It contains substantial amounts of methane hydrates, and it is especially vulnerable to thawing as sea ice retreats, and water temperatures rise.
The East Siberian Sea includes 810,000 square miles (2.1 million km2) of shallow water, most of which is less than 130 feet (40 m) deep. In the good old days, the sea used to be covered year round with surface ice, which kept the water frigid. This changed in 2005, when summer sea ice began disappearing, which exposed seawater to the atmosphere for the first time. Sunlight could now penetrate directly into the water and warm it. Shallow waters warmed faster than deeper areas.
For the first time in tens of thousands of years, warm water could reach the seabed, causing frozen sediments to thaw. Then, as the underlying permafrost thaws, large plumes of methane bubbles are released. In deeper waters, the rising methane oxidizes, and the plume disappears before reaching the surface. In the shallows, methane makes it to the surface, and is released into the atmosphere.
In the entire Arctic Ocean, the methane hydrate deposits are estimated to contain 13 times the amount of carbon currently present in the atmosphere. Wadhams believes that “the risk of an Arctic seabed methane pulse is one of the greatest immediate risks facing the human race.” Russian scientists on site calculate that the probability of this is at least 50 percent. Scientists skeptical about the possible methane pulse have one thing in common — none have participated in research on the East Siberian Sea. In a 2020 article, Wadhams revealed that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf was home to high concentrations of methane hydrates in permafrost layers that are up to 1.25 miles (2 km) thick. [LINK]
Terrestrial permafrost is buried under dry land across the Arctic. It is found within a region of 7.3 million square miles (19 million km2) — something like the combined land area of Russia and Argentina. As Arctic temperatures soar, the permafrost is rapidly thawing. Soils in this permafrost contain lots of organic carbon, plant material that lived long ago, but froze before fully decomposing. Unlike offshore permafrost, terrestrial permafrost does not contain methane while frozen. But when it thaws and decays, chemical processes then create CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Wadhams strongly suspects that a massive seabed methane pulse may occur in the next decade or so. One way or another, fast or slow, the permafrost will inevitably thaw. Nobody questions that the climate is warming. The amount of carbon stored in the offshore permafrost is estimated to be 50 gigatons, but the terrestrial permafrost is estimated to hold 1,400 to 1,700 gigatons (30 times more than offshore). Wadhams believes that most of the massive greenhouse emissions are likely to take place by the end of the century, at the latest.
So, that’s a bit about what this book is about. When you sit down with a copy from your friendly local library, you’ll learn much more. Wadhams is profoundly concerned about the path we’re on, and is distinctly gloomy about where we’re headed. He admits that the technological miracles that will successfully end the Arctic Death Spiral have yet to be invented, and may never be.
Humankind remains largely clueless, whilst insanely committed to preserving our maximum waste lifestyle, as long as possible, by any means necessary. Only dangerous heretics talk about sensibly turning stuff OFF. We are wading neck deep in happy talk, misinformation, gibberish, and magical thinking. The jungle drums keep talking about “solving the Climate Crisis.” The spotlights are aimed at solar panels, electric cars, and LED light bulbs, not melting permafrost. What could possibly go wrong?
December 6, 2016
BOOK OF THE YEAR.
A writer has one imperative or simple rule – read. Often I have little understanding of what I’m reading. Usually there is a but here. I do not understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but…kinda like a meme from T. S. Eliot’s Little Gidding: ‘We shall not cease from exploration/And the end of all our exploring/Will be to arrive where we started.’ Or Rumi’s parable of the elephant and six blind men. One holding onto a leg, or trunk, an ear, and explaining to the other what in the world stands true. Wadhams' A Farewell to Ice is a familiar tale and it is distilled into a line of poetry he quotes from mystic Francis Thompson: ‘Thou canst not stir a flower/Without troubling of a star’.
Like Jonah preaching to the Ninevites and warning them they have forty days, Wadhams is telling us much the same thing about the accelerating effects of Arctic Feedbacks on our once blue planet. He is not giving us forty days, but perhaps forty years and we’re pretty much gubbed, sackcloth and ashes.
The trigger is fossil fuels, measured in parts per million, and what he is saying is mankind has already fired the bullet. I employ a simple rule of thumb, when a pessimist is also a realist, usually he’s right. Think of Thomas Piketty Capital documenting how after the end of the 1970s money flowed at increasing rates from the poor to the rich in the developed world. Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, I don’t need to know all the details. I can believe it is true, or not, which is an act of faith. But Piketty as an economist showed us how he got to where he is and said, very simply, prove me wrong. Wadham does the same. Here is my data and here is my message: ‘We must not only go to zero emissions, we must actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere’ (italics around text are Wadhams'). He suggests a real danger with hundreds of millions starving, and also a real danger of nuclear war.
What Wadhams didn’t factor in was the Donald Trump factor and the appointment of former General ‘Mad Dog’ Maddis as United States Defense Secretary, or the President Elect’s provocation with China over the sovereignty of South Korea even before he takes office. We live in interesting times.
But Wadhams is on more familiar ground with his outing of ‘The Black Tide of Denial’ and how fossil fuel interests have taken a hatchet to budgets and attempted to discredit those that support the claims of global warming in the same way that Communists were thought to be under every bed in the McCarthy era. Wadham gives several examples of attacks on himself and other scientists, but perhaps the best example comes from Jamie Doward, The Observer, ‘How the trolling of a tech pioneer reveals a new assault on climate science’: https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...
Wadham could not have predicted prior to publication this year that the trolls that produced such propaganda would not only try to influence decisions about climate change, but would be appointed as judges of what was right and wrong. All that ‘green crap’ referred to by David Cameron is dead in the water. An analogy would be fifty years ago appointing directors of the big five tobacco companies as independent advisors of whether there was a link between smoking and cancer. The difference now, of course, is we’ve not got fifty years. The enemy is at the door now. And our blue planet does not care what you believe, or whether you believe it is right or wrong. The earth will keep turning. One million years is not the equivalent of a minute in the day. Pseudo-science and greed has given voice and grown arms and legs. Perhaps reason will meet sense, but I doubt it. We are too far down the path. As above, so below and all parts are interconnected.
Listen to a quote in Wadhams from a voice of reason, scientist and Professor Robert P. Abele.
'As we inflict violence on the planet to the point of mortality, we inflict violence on ourselves, to the point of our mortality. A dead planet will result in dead people, and a people and/or its leaders who are psychologically and/or ethically desensitized to the consequences of this Terran violence have no chance of long-term survival.'
Read this book. Ask a simple question: what can we do?
A writer has one imperative or simple rule – read. Often I have little understanding of what I’m reading. Usually there is a but here. I do not understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but…kinda like a meme from T. S. Eliot’s Little Gidding: ‘We shall not cease from exploration/And the end of all our exploring/Will be to arrive where we started.’ Or Rumi’s parable of the elephant and six blind men. One holding onto a leg, or trunk, an ear, and explaining to the other what in the world stands true. Wadhams' A Farewell to Ice is a familiar tale and it is distilled into a line of poetry he quotes from mystic Francis Thompson: ‘Thou canst not stir a flower/Without troubling of a star’.
Like Jonah preaching to the Ninevites and warning them they have forty days, Wadhams is telling us much the same thing about the accelerating effects of Arctic Feedbacks on our once blue planet. He is not giving us forty days, but perhaps forty years and we’re pretty much gubbed, sackcloth and ashes.
The trigger is fossil fuels, measured in parts per million, and what he is saying is mankind has already fired the bullet. I employ a simple rule of thumb, when a pessimist is also a realist, usually he’s right. Think of Thomas Piketty Capital documenting how after the end of the 1970s money flowed at increasing rates from the poor to the rich in the developed world. Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, I don’t need to know all the details. I can believe it is true, or not, which is an act of faith. But Piketty as an economist showed us how he got to where he is and said, very simply, prove me wrong. Wadham does the same. Here is my data and here is my message: ‘We must not only go to zero emissions, we must actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere’ (italics around text are Wadhams'). He suggests a real danger with hundreds of millions starving, and also a real danger of nuclear war.
What Wadhams didn’t factor in was the Donald Trump factor and the appointment of former General ‘Mad Dog’ Maddis as United States Defense Secretary, or the President Elect’s provocation with China over the sovereignty of South Korea even before he takes office. We live in interesting times.
But Wadhams is on more familiar ground with his outing of ‘The Black Tide of Denial’ and how fossil fuel interests have taken a hatchet to budgets and attempted to discredit those that support the claims of global warming in the same way that Communists were thought to be under every bed in the McCarthy era. Wadham gives several examples of attacks on himself and other scientists, but perhaps the best example comes from Jamie Doward, The Observer, ‘How the trolling of a tech pioneer reveals a new assault on climate science’: https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...
Wadham could not have predicted prior to publication this year that the trolls that produced such propaganda would not only try to influence decisions about climate change, but would be appointed as judges of what was right and wrong. All that ‘green crap’ referred to by David Cameron is dead in the water. An analogy would be fifty years ago appointing directors of the big five tobacco companies as independent advisors of whether there was a link between smoking and cancer. The difference now, of course, is we’ve not got fifty years. The enemy is at the door now. And our blue planet does not care what you believe, or whether you believe it is right or wrong. The earth will keep turning. One million years is not the equivalent of a minute in the day. Pseudo-science and greed has given voice and grown arms and legs. Perhaps reason will meet sense, but I doubt it. We are too far down the path. As above, so below and all parts are interconnected.
Listen to a quote in Wadhams from a voice of reason, scientist and Professor Robert P. Abele.
'As we inflict violence on the planet to the point of mortality, we inflict violence on ourselves, to the point of our mortality. A dead planet will result in dead people, and a people and/or its leaders who are psychologically and/or ethically desensitized to the consequences of this Terran violence have no chance of long-term survival.'
Read this book. Ask a simple question: what can we do?
December 14, 2020
Chilling, bleak but plain truthful reading. Whoever reads this book isn't going to do it by accident. But to those who have read it, it is one of the key climate change books you must read. I would put it in my top 5 alongside Greta Thunbergs's book, Uninhabitable Planet, There is No Planet B and Drawdown by Paul Hawken (which I'm about to finish). I shall share why this book is essential climate change reading.
Here is a seminal popular science book with an important message: Act now to avert climate disaster. It is stark and clear. What makes this book so good is the clarity of the scientific writing. The subject matter is mostly concerned with the Arctic ice, but there is a compare and contrast with the Antarctic sea ice. On p.89, Peter is writing about the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent and clearly demonstrates how the IPCC graph (can be found here URL:https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/ran...) from its latest AR5 report is not reporting the latest data. The latest data, not shown here in this diagram but found here [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jou...], unequivocally relates more rapid ice loss than forecast by IPCC. As scientists, they must be honest and use the latest data available. In Wadhams' words, "Stopping the historical curve at 2005 is seriously misleading, because it was from 2007 that the most catastrophically rapid decline of sea ice occurred, and this should not be omitted from the graph. The AR5 assessment is supposed to take account of data up to 2012..." Wadhams is quick to flag possible obfuscation, and communication of mis-truth. The IPCC consensus is not representing the true extent of Arctic sea ice loss. This truthful presentation of the science is found throughout the book, and here is one instance of this demonstrated. It really is first-rate scientific communication.
The book would appeal to a science nut or someone who wants to swallow the bitter truth of where we as a planet stand in relation to this climate change problem. I don't think you'll find a better popular science book which does the job better. If you do read it, you will find, as I did that this book is "justifiably alarmist." If you are not alarmed having read this book, I don't think you understand that the warming problem we have now is felt now as a consequence of previous decades worth of emissions; the warming picture will get worse if we cease emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which Wadhams elegantly calls the "flywheel effect." Special mentions include how ice forms (geeks will love this part for the scientific detail), how the Antarctic ice compares to Arctic ice, the special feedback mechanisms specific to receding Arctic sea ice, the reason for warming ranges of different greenhouse gases and sea ice's potential influence on thermohaline circulation (heat driving different water densities through the seas and oceans, which are important for weather patterns and life itself).
Due to the flywheel effect, all of us will experience most if not all of (effects of the) forecasted 1.5 degrees celsius by 2032 (as indicated in the Paris Climate Agreement). To mitigate this effect, Wadhams recommends the development of technologies such as the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and marine cloud brightening. The latter one Peter considers one of many interventions which the potential to curtail the influence of existing and future CO2 warming effects, but there is limited international backing for its development and widespread use.
Peter lists what we, our governments and the world could do,
First, Individually, we can counter the lies and specious arguments of climate deniers. We simply present the evidence demonstrating these warming effects.
Second, reduce your consumption of fossil fuels by driving less, using a bike, investing in carbon neutral energy sources.
Third, nationally, lobby governments to change to renewable energy sources.
Fourth, international geoengineering efforts are needed to scale up any effective interventions to take carbon from the air.
All this is achievable given international effort and collaboration; simply look at the development of several covid-19 vaccines and one can see the possibilities of such co-ordinated work. The "emit now and remove later" group is gaining traction; we must act now to stem the tide on this, in whatever forms you have available to you. The International community need to see that immediate losses are not as bad as the certain losses over the next decades in this century to come (i.e. loss aversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_av...]). Wadhams reports that these losses over the century could be in the range of 37-60 trillion dollars felt mostly in poorer countries; this figure is from the loss of Arctic ice alone. This is a gigantic economic loss, let alone to life itself on the planet.
One gripe a reader may have is that Wadhams supports the adoption of nuclear power as a clean, viable energy source, at the last for the time being prior to other sustainable energy sources catching on in swatches through the population. In my opinion, the choice the nuclear power is a lesser evil than any fossil fuel source, hands down. We don't want anymore greenhouse emissions, it can be helped. Of course, the popular perception of nuclear is emotively charged, but any discerning reader will need to weigh up the pros and cons of all options, including nuclear, when the planet's viability and life itself are jeopardised. Wadhams suggests thorium, not uranium, be used a nuclear source, as uranium decay products tend to serve military purposes. But you can decide for yourself if you read the book, and the evidence available. There are a wealth of book, reports and academic papers cited.
Wadhams' book is unique in that it is written by a scientist for public consumption. In other words, he is putting his scientific credentials on the line. But his argument for doing so is very clear. Personal honour and reputation are nugatory without a life-sustaining planet to live on. And for that alone, I admire his integrity by putting his science where it really matters, that is, in the public domain so people can read, discuss and act on the science. I do appreciate the science may be a little too much for some, but it is needed to fend off the "evidence" and rhetoric of staunch climate deniers.
If you've read this far, I think you should read this book, discuss it with one other person and share the book with someone else, ideally a sceptic or even someone who doesn't know much as climate change. We know too much to keep this information a secret. Consider it a little favour done for the planet we depend on. If we look after the earth, it will look after us.
Here is a seminal popular science book with an important message: Act now to avert climate disaster. It is stark and clear. What makes this book so good is the clarity of the scientific writing. The subject matter is mostly concerned with the Arctic ice, but there is a compare and contrast with the Antarctic sea ice. On p.89, Peter is writing about the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent and clearly demonstrates how the IPCC graph (can be found here URL:https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/ran...) from its latest AR5 report is not reporting the latest data. The latest data, not shown here in this diagram but found here [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jou...], unequivocally relates more rapid ice loss than forecast by IPCC. As scientists, they must be honest and use the latest data available. In Wadhams' words, "Stopping the historical curve at 2005 is seriously misleading, because it was from 2007 that the most catastrophically rapid decline of sea ice occurred, and this should not be omitted from the graph. The AR5 assessment is supposed to take account of data up to 2012..." Wadhams is quick to flag possible obfuscation, and communication of mis-truth. The IPCC consensus is not representing the true extent of Arctic sea ice loss. This truthful presentation of the science is found throughout the book, and here is one instance of this demonstrated. It really is first-rate scientific communication.
The book would appeal to a science nut or someone who wants to swallow the bitter truth of where we as a planet stand in relation to this climate change problem. I don't think you'll find a better popular science book which does the job better. If you do read it, you will find, as I did that this book is "justifiably alarmist." If you are not alarmed having read this book, I don't think you understand that the warming problem we have now is felt now as a consequence of previous decades worth of emissions; the warming picture will get worse if we cease emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which Wadhams elegantly calls the "flywheel effect." Special mentions include how ice forms (geeks will love this part for the scientific detail), how the Antarctic ice compares to Arctic ice, the special feedback mechanisms specific to receding Arctic sea ice, the reason for warming ranges of different greenhouse gases and sea ice's potential influence on thermohaline circulation (heat driving different water densities through the seas and oceans, which are important for weather patterns and life itself).
Due to the flywheel effect, all of us will experience most if not all of (effects of the) forecasted 1.5 degrees celsius by 2032 (as indicated in the Paris Climate Agreement). To mitigate this effect, Wadhams recommends the development of technologies such as the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and marine cloud brightening. The latter one Peter considers one of many interventions which the potential to curtail the influence of existing and future CO2 warming effects, but there is limited international backing for its development and widespread use.
Peter lists what we, our governments and the world could do,
First, Individually, we can counter the lies and specious arguments of climate deniers. We simply present the evidence demonstrating these warming effects.
Second, reduce your consumption of fossil fuels by driving less, using a bike, investing in carbon neutral energy sources.
Third, nationally, lobby governments to change to renewable energy sources.
Fourth, international geoengineering efforts are needed to scale up any effective interventions to take carbon from the air.
All this is achievable given international effort and collaboration; simply look at the development of several covid-19 vaccines and one can see the possibilities of such co-ordinated work. The "emit now and remove later" group is gaining traction; we must act now to stem the tide on this, in whatever forms you have available to you. The International community need to see that immediate losses are not as bad as the certain losses over the next decades in this century to come (i.e. loss aversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_av...]). Wadhams reports that these losses over the century could be in the range of 37-60 trillion dollars felt mostly in poorer countries; this figure is from the loss of Arctic ice alone. This is a gigantic economic loss, let alone to life itself on the planet.
One gripe a reader may have is that Wadhams supports the adoption of nuclear power as a clean, viable energy source, at the last for the time being prior to other sustainable energy sources catching on in swatches through the population. In my opinion, the choice the nuclear power is a lesser evil than any fossil fuel source, hands down. We don't want anymore greenhouse emissions, it can be helped. Of course, the popular perception of nuclear is emotively charged, but any discerning reader will need to weigh up the pros and cons of all options, including nuclear, when the planet's viability and life itself are jeopardised. Wadhams suggests thorium, not uranium, be used a nuclear source, as uranium decay products tend to serve military purposes. But you can decide for yourself if you read the book, and the evidence available. There are a wealth of book, reports and academic papers cited.
Wadhams' book is unique in that it is written by a scientist for public consumption. In other words, he is putting his scientific credentials on the line. But his argument for doing so is very clear. Personal honour and reputation are nugatory without a life-sustaining planet to live on. And for that alone, I admire his integrity by putting his science where it really matters, that is, in the public domain so people can read, discuss and act on the science. I do appreciate the science may be a little too much for some, but it is needed to fend off the "evidence" and rhetoric of staunch climate deniers.
If you've read this far, I think you should read this book, discuss it with one other person and share the book with someone else, ideally a sceptic or even someone who doesn't know much as climate change. We know too much to keep this information a secret. Consider it a little favour done for the planet we depend on. If we look after the earth, it will look after us.
November 27, 2020
Peter Wadhams has been studying ice for fifty years. He tells the story of climate change as evidenced by the melting of the Arctic ice caps, and he uses scientific data collected and research of the work of many people to back up everything he states as facts. It's not a hopeful story, he tells us. It may be too late unless some sort of Manhattan Project for repair of the earth is undertaken. But the first step in trying to change things is acquiring sound knowledge of the scope of the problem. This book is that evidence.
I am not a scientist, but I could make my way (fairly well) through the information in the book. Our naturalist book group discussion helped clarify much of the book for me. One of the group members said he thought this was the best discussion the group has ever had.
I wish I could take action to do things that would change the situation. For now, I will encourage others who control more resources than I do and who have the power to mandate changes I don't have to read this book.
#2020ReadNonFic
I am not a scientist, but I could make my way (fairly well) through the information in the book. Our naturalist book group discussion helped clarify much of the book for me. One of the group members said he thought this was the best discussion the group has ever had.
I wish I could take action to do things that would change the situation. For now, I will encourage others who control more resources than I do and who have the power to mandate changes I don't have to read this book.
#2020ReadNonFic
December 9, 2018
An absolute must read. Wadhams describes multiple facets of the effects of climate change and beyond, breaking down scientific phrasing and processes into patient layman terms to give everyone the opportunity to really appreciate the work going on and the work there is still left to do.
If only this was necessary reading at schools.
If only this was necessary reading at schools.
June 16, 2020
A bold work for our times
Dr. Wadhams makes a clear and cogent case about the peril of our times. He says what few others have the courage to say, and he brings the receipts. Anyone interested in learning about global warming will gain more than they might guess from this book, which first teaches you all about ice and then shows you what it all means.
Dr. Wadhams makes a clear and cogent case about the peril of our times. He says what few others have the courage to say, and he brings the receipts. Anyone interested in learning about global warming will gain more than they might guess from this book, which first teaches you all about ice and then shows you what it all means.
February 24, 2020
Most of the book is a very clearly written examination of ice, particularly arctic ice -- how and why ice forms; what has been happening to arctic ice over the last 50+ years, both in distribution and thickness; what the consequences of the retreating and thinning arctic ice is for the arctic and the rest of the world (more than you'd guess) -- written by a scientist on the front lines of this research. This part of the book is a definite 4 stars. The last two chapters are on climate change and what we should do. Here the author assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader and makes very general, apocalyptic statements but doesn't back them up with enough specific examples of how the earth with become uninhabitable for humans, a contention he repeats several times. This part of the book needed expanding with enough detail to carry those who haven't read a lot of climate change books along with him. It gets 3 stars, maybe 2.5, for being ineffective. Unfortunately, I believe this is last part of the book is what the author most cares about. Nonetheless, the information in this part of the book gives one an appreciation of the politics and frustrations scientists have to deal with when their studies threaten economic or political interests.
October 16, 2024
Sicuramente qualcuno lo troverà eccessivamente allarmista, purtroppo P. Wadhams sarà l'unico ad averci detto la verità, quando ce ne accorgeremo in un futuro prossimo. Sì, anche l'IPCC ha fatto previsioni blande sul cambiamento climatico. Questo testimonia la grande confusione dei tempi in cui viviamo.
February 13, 2018
Iedereen zou dit eigenlijk moeten lezen, vooraleer onze Aarde ontploft.
September 5, 2016
I think this book could've been much more engagingly written, but given how informative it is about something so important to the human race and the planet, it deserves four stars.
It isn't quite as accessible as I'd hoped - I consider myself reasonably capable of grasping scientific concepts, but the chapter at the very beginning on the science of ice itself (how it forms, how it's structured, etc) was something of a struggle, and perhaps unnecessary for understanding the basic mechanics of the phenomena described later. What would have made the book truly excel is a smattering of personal anecdotes from the author (we get just one, about an explosion on a submarine below the Arctic ice). He must have seen so many beautiful, incredible, terrible sights in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the kinds of sights you don't need to be a writer to convey. If only he'd opened with something personal, something emotional - that's the way to hook people, to truly engage them.
Fortunately, I was able to plough through to the good stuff - the many feedback mechanisms that make climate change so devastatingly effective and far-reaching, the many and sometimes unexpected effects that climate change will have through things such as ocean currents and weather systems, the wilful fallibility and self-denial of the IPCC, and the possible - "possible" often being rather tenuous - ways in which we might be able to mitigate some of the impact of climate change. Particularly affecting are the parts when the author considers the humanitarian impacts of climate change-induced resource crises in the future (see the title of my review).
The one other thing that could've enhanced this book, apart from more of a personal touch, is a "TL;DR" FAQ section for rebutting the commonest and most insidious claims by those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change.
To round off - sadly, I fear many people will be dissuaded from reading this book by the second chapter on ice, and after that may still struggle without an engaging authorial style. It's an important book, and recommended for anyone with an interest in the environment or human quality of life /human rights or the future, but I suspect most of its audience will already be converts.
It isn't quite as accessible as I'd hoped - I consider myself reasonably capable of grasping scientific concepts, but the chapter at the very beginning on the science of ice itself (how it forms, how it's structured, etc) was something of a struggle, and perhaps unnecessary for understanding the basic mechanics of the phenomena described later. What would have made the book truly excel is a smattering of personal anecdotes from the author (we get just one, about an explosion on a submarine below the Arctic ice). He must have seen so many beautiful, incredible, terrible sights in the Arctic and the Antarctic, the kinds of sights you don't need to be a writer to convey. If only he'd opened with something personal, something emotional - that's the way to hook people, to truly engage them.
Fortunately, I was able to plough through to the good stuff - the many feedback mechanisms that make climate change so devastatingly effective and far-reaching, the many and sometimes unexpected effects that climate change will have through things such as ocean currents and weather systems, the wilful fallibility and self-denial of the IPCC, and the possible - "possible" often being rather tenuous - ways in which we might be able to mitigate some of the impact of climate change. Particularly affecting are the parts when the author considers the humanitarian impacts of climate change-induced resource crises in the future (see the title of my review).
The one other thing that could've enhanced this book, apart from more of a personal touch, is a "TL;DR" FAQ section for rebutting the commonest and most insidious claims by those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change.
To round off - sadly, I fear many people will be dissuaded from reading this book by the second chapter on ice, and after that may still struggle without an engaging authorial style. It's an important book, and recommended for anyone with an interest in the environment or human quality of life /human rights or the future, but I suspect most of its audience will already be converts.
October 18, 2017
There is some good science in this book and the basic thesis is 100% correct; the Arctic is melting, and the impact of this will be as much of a climate driver as carbon emissions. There’s also the methane releases from thawing permafrost and the sea bottoms of formerly frozen waters which, if they reach the levels some researchers indicate they might, could very well destroy life as we know it. This is serious stuff that most people are unaware of.
Unfortunately Wadhams undermines his own credibility with extreme predictions that make him an easy target for climate deniers who prefer the simple work of attacking people because, quite frankly, they cannot counter the science (although they are quite skilled at lying about it).
The author, writing early in 2016, insisted that the Arctic Ocean would be Ice free that year or the following. In fact 2017 saw the eight least minimum coverage recorded. There’s still ice, although not much of it. The trend is absolutely downward, but by making such a rash and quickly disproven claim, Wadhams threw his other projections into doubt.
He would have produced a better book by presenting the most recent studies, offering his critiques of them and what he considers likely and unlikely, but without defaulting to the most alarmist positions. Yes, we needed to get on this problem decades ago, but by making such panicked claims he’s done his cause more harm than good. If he’d stuck to the science - which is quite informative - he’d have accomplished more and come across better
Unfortunately Wadhams undermines his own credibility with extreme predictions that make him an easy target for climate deniers who prefer the simple work of attacking people because, quite frankly, they cannot counter the science (although they are quite skilled at lying about it).
The author, writing early in 2016, insisted that the Arctic Ocean would be Ice free that year or the following. In fact 2017 saw the eight least minimum coverage recorded. There’s still ice, although not much of it. The trend is absolutely downward, but by making such a rash and quickly disproven claim, Wadhams threw his other projections into doubt.
He would have produced a better book by presenting the most recent studies, offering his critiques of them and what he considers likely and unlikely, but without defaulting to the most alarmist positions. Yes, we needed to get on this problem decades ago, but by making such panicked claims he’s done his cause more harm than good. If he’d stuck to the science - which is quite informative - he’d have accomplished more and come across better
April 10, 2018
A good primer to understand the challenges faced by the Arctic, and how climate changes in the remote north have world wide consequences. Written by a 50 year veteran of Arctic research, the author explains how the ice covering the Arctic Ocean has changed from the solid, mostly multi-year formations to today's growing percentage of weaker, first year ice formation.
A Farewell to Ice is a dire warning as more open water forms in the north, absorbing solar radiation and heating water to above freezing temperatures. Open waters that will allow ice to flow north and west from the Greenland Ice Sheet, raising sea levels. Heated waters that will allow trapped methane to be released from millennial long watery graves, rapidly increasing potent greenhouse gas levels.
The final chapters deal with possible solutions, all of which are either untested and as costly as the current GDP for the world or theoretical and uninvented to date.
A Farewell to Ice is a dire warning as more open water forms in the north, absorbing solar radiation and heating water to above freezing temperatures. Open waters that will allow ice to flow north and west from the Greenland Ice Sheet, raising sea levels. Heated waters that will allow trapped methane to be released from millennial long watery graves, rapidly increasing potent greenhouse gas levels.
The final chapters deal with possible solutions, all of which are either untested and as costly as the current GDP for the world or theoretical and uninvented to date.
October 15, 2018
This is a must-read for anyone worried about the state of our planet, not just those like myself with an 'oceans orientation'. The author does an exceptionally good job at explaining the complexities of ice formation, its chemistry and its impact, as we see ice-melt in the Arctic, and then expands the implications of his career research to the Antarctic, sea-level rise across the planet, and the over-heating of the planet. Our future is not just about decarbonization, but the facts on methane slip potential are part of the holistic view of what is happening today. By the end of the book, you see the much larger issues. The final chapter lays out what citizens can ask governments to do, and, more importantly, do themselves. If you feel you are getting bogged down in the science, just slide ahead a few pages and he will resurface for the next step in a well-constructed read.
December 21, 2018
Super informative; first describes processes of ice formation and historical ice and climate patterns, then focuses on climate change and its relation to changes in sea ice volume and extent. Very clearly explains the magnitude of the threat facing the planet as it is currently understood and the urgent (long overdue, actually) need for a massive global effort to halt and undo the damage begun by carbon emissions. Eye-opening for me personally; I’m now much more interested in oceanography, geoengineering, and of course polar science. I also appreciated the personal feel behind much of this book; having dedicated 47 years to studying it, Wadhams clearly cares deeply about the Arctic for more than just its role in global climate; his passion for the subject is evident and more than a little contagious. Overall an excellent book.
February 6, 2017
Fascinating book about the Artic and its ice. Fascinating, but ultimately very frightening. Sadly I do not think mankind will do anything willingly about curbing our carbon emissions, nor do we, or will have technical capability nor resourcing to remove the CO2 we have already dumped in the atmosphere. The only way our crazy behaviour will be stopped, is if we deliberately or accidentally break the global financial system, which would bring down our economies which are currently geared for and demand perpetual growth.
February 2, 2017
This packed in so much technical detail that I had to skim some of it. But there is no doubting Wadhams' expertise and the urgency of his message. He is at odds with the International Panel on Climate Change, which he believes grossly underestimates the threat. It's a frightening and depressing book, especially in the light of people now wielding the power in the world.
September 11, 2019
A worthwhile read in the vast landscape of climate change literature. By focusing on a single impact you can gain a view of how quickly things are changing. It was interesting to read about the failures of the IPCC models and, as always, a terrifying reminder of the challenges climate change raises.
November 3, 2019
Perché l'Artico si scioglie? E perché questa è una pessima notizia per tutti? Peter Wadhams, uno dei più importanti esperti a livello mondiale di ghiaccio marino e oceani polari, riesce a essere divulgativo, appassionato e militante. Se ci si vuole rendere conto del disastro in cui ci siamo cacciati è uno dei libri da leggere. Ma mette anche tanta, tanta tristezza.
April 5, 2018
Solid science regarding the Arctic and its effects globally of shrinking sea ice. Some amazing personal stories of the authors career of 40+ years of research. But, the tone is quite arrogant at times, and the outlook bleak, for the Arctic and the global human population..
August 6, 2018
Essential reading-more than just a scientific study..
It is a compelling story describing on how we got to this point. More importantly the book describes actions that we must take to save our planet
It is a compelling story describing on how we got to this point. More importantly the book describes actions that we must take to save our planet
July 21, 2019
Very interesting book. Made me realize how behind the curve we are. Ice is much farther gone than I thought. Will have to do some followup research. August 2019 Scientific American is suppose to have an article on the same topic.
October 21, 2017
Amazing book. Very informative, and covers a lot of topics regarding climate change/melting of the poles.
June 20, 2019
Its an eye opener! A bit emotive in places, but hard not to be when the future of the word is at stake!
July 3, 2019
A quite comprehensive review of the rapidly changing state of global ice by an experienced professional embittered and disappointed by the lack of global action to mitigate global warming.
August 4, 2019
Fascinating but dense - worth the read. Our home - Earth - was created by the ice. Now it is going, especially sea ice in the Arctic.
July 10, 2023
6 years later proved to be wholly inaccurate, threw it in the trash
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews