I’m following with great interest a voyage by the German polar research vessel Polarstern to the Antarctic to conduct an experiment in “ocean fertilization” and the controversy over the project.
Some organisations are highly concerned about the experiment and feel it’s in breach of international agreements to protect biodiversity:
Background from the opponents, the ETC or “Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
The project is a German-Indian venture. There’s more information in English on the website of the National Institute of Oceanography.
Project to fertilize the ocean with iron
I haven’t found much on this on the AWI website, that’s Germany’s Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research. I’ll try to contact them and follow this story up.
The trouble is a lot of people are very concerned about interfering with the oceans in this way without knowing the likely consequences. The idea is that the iron will lead to a bloom of algae, which will ultimately sequester Co2. But it is not without risk.
The ETC cites an online article on the 2008 Convention on Biodiversity meeting here in Bonn, Germany,and the strong concerns documented their about iron fertilization.
media coverage of CBD view, May 2008
If you have strong views on this or links to further information on the issue, I’d be pleased to hear them.

That’s a quote from David Barber, an Arctic climatologist at the University of Manitoba, speaking to IPS at the International Arctic Change conference in Quebec, Canada.
Read the whole article here
He thinks the Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2015. And he’s not alone in thinking that.
Even the worst-case scenarios looked at by the IPCC didn’t consider that possibility for another 50 to 70 years.

The latest NASA satellite data also indicates continuing rapid ice melt. More than 2 trillion tons of LAND ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, more than half of it in Greenland. This is all based on measurements of ice weight by NASA’S GRACE satellite. More figures will be released in San Francisco later today, at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco.
AGU website with more info
You’d think hard evidence like that using the best technology we have would convince even the staunchest sceptics and provoke action. I often tend to think it will. Normally I say I’m a born optimist. But is it optmistic to think people will be convinced by potentially catastrophic data?
That’s a question for the philosophers.
Meanwhile the World Meteorological Organization has said the past 12 months have been cooler than previous years, but longer-term trends show the world is still warming because of climate change. The MTO explain the slight dip in temperature by a La Nina event. And the organisation is concerned about the ice in the Arctic Sea having dropped to its second-lowest level during the melt season since satellite measurements began in 1979.
More on the WMO website
So in the light of all that, what do you make of the outcome of the Poznan conference and the EU’s latest climate of climate measures?

What an amazing election result.
Change was the slogan, and there is so much that needs to be changed, especially with regard to climate policy.
If Barack Obama succeeds with his vision of ending US dependency on fossil fuels, it will change the world.
Of couse China has now overtaken the US on emissions, but the US could set a precedent.
I was very happy to hear the news, but also worried about whether the new President will be able to fulfill all the expectations directed at him. In fact, I’m sure he can’t. But if he can turn US policy on the climate around, he will be helping safeguard the future of everybody.
And with the Democrats apparently in control of all houses,the new administration should really be empowered to take action. And the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will have a reprieve.
Jodi wrote in that climate policy was blended into the candidates’ entire world view and policy package.She makes the point that you can’t see it in isolation, but only as part of the candidates’ world view. Your’re right Jodi. And, as you say, we can be happy the debate has moved on to tackling climate change, not questioning it. You also say the make up of Congress will be decisive. So I wonder how you interpret the outcome now?
Cara share’s Jodi’s relief about the overall change of attitude to climate change in the US. Cara, I agree with what you say about Al Gore’s key role in bringing Climate Change to the forefront of U.S. politics. You need celebrities and charismatic personalities to get these things across.
Cara says environmental policy was a huge decision-making factor in her vote, and she can’t wait to see what positive changes “our new president makes to improve the health of our planet!” She wrote that before the result was known. Obviously her optimism was well-founded.
Andy T. writes in that there was no other option for him but Obama. But he stresses that he can’t work miracles. Too true Andy, and time is marching on all too fast. Barack has a colossal task ahead of him. As you also mention, the global financial crisis has diverted a lot of people’s attention away from the climate issue. “They don’t realize that new technologies to combat climate change can be money-spinners or that it will cost us much more if we don’t take action to curb global warming now.”
It’s time the Stern Report came back into the headlines Andy.
The Economics of Climate Change

The World Bank has been running a short film/video competition on the subject of the Social Dimensions of Climate Change.
Cara Augustenborg from Ireland is in 9th place with a short film she made on the Inupiat in Barrow, Arctic Alaska. (Sound familiar? Yes, she was one of the Climate Change College ambassadors I accompanied to Arctic Alaska, the birthplace of the Ice Blog).
Social Responsibility competition, with the short-listed filma

Cara (green do-it-your-selfer in the green helmet)with Aart and Erika, filming for their projects in Alaska
And here’s a link to Cara’s site

This week’s Arctic news has been pretty drastic. The current autumn temperature is five degrees higher than the average. 2007 was the warmest year ever in the Arctic, since people started to record the temperature. The sea ice, as we know, has decreased dramatically.
This is all based on figures from NOAA, the US climate research body (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
NOAA statistics and reports
The Polarstern (translates as Pole Star), the research vessel belonging to the German polar agency AWI (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research) returned to base after being the first research vessel to sail right round the north pole because the north-west passage was open as well as the north-east.
The Polarstern voyage around the North Pole
White ice and snow reflect heat back into the atmosphere. Water,open because the ice has melted, is darker and absorbs heat, warming the ocean further. The Arctic is heating up at an alarming rate.
“Rudy” sent a comment in to the Ice Blog. He still isn’t convinced about global warming, it seems. I’m still trying to understand how that can be and what his point of view is.
Rudy, forgive me for not publishing the comment, but it contains abridged quotes from people without the context. Without being able to check the context, I can’t put them up here.
I’m happy to pick up on some of your points, though.
You’re right. Thankfully, the Arctic was not ice-free in 2008.(I didn’t think it would be, neither did most reliable sources I follow). But sea-ice cover hit a record low in 2007 and is not recovering. The North-West passage has been open. And the warming trend is continuing. Changes in flora and fauna are being witnessed and recorded. This is happening. And things are changing fast.
You say winds and circulation are causes of sea-ice melting, not global warming. Sure, winds and circulation play an important role. Nobody would dispute that. But these factors are all connected. And the climate is changing. I’ve talked to scientists from all over the world who are desperately trying to make predictions for the future. Nobody has a crystal ball. But we know humankind is pumping masses of CO2 into the atmosphere, melting permafrost is releasing methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere at an increasing rate. Of course there are natural climate cycles. But we are having our own effect.
I was talking to some British friends this weekend, who suggested we should really get away from the misleading “global warming” talk and refer to “climate change”. Apart from the jokes about the British wanting warmer weather anyway – of course climate change manifests itself in colder weather in some places at some times. Is it just the “global warming” term that bothers you?
What bothers me right now is that our EU countries are thinking about reducing their commitment to climate-saving measures because of the global financial crisis. If we don’t take action now, we might not have a globe we can live on, let alone finances to worry about.
I wish someone could convince me that’s too pessimistic?