Arctic Melting and Climate Change

A new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research has been released, stating that arctic ice is melting at a rate that exceeds even the highest theorized estimates. While the models utilized by researches estimated a 5.4 percent per decade decline in arctic ice, the new evidence compiled from numerous measurements shows that the ice is in fact melting at a rate closer to 7.8 percent per decade.

This new evidence of a higher rate of melting indicates that atmospheric carbon dioxide is playing a greater role than previously thought, and has forced scientists to revise their models -- the new measurements indicate that the arctic could be free of ice up to 30 years earlier than previously thought.

While I am certainly no expert on climate change or atmospheric research, it occurred to me that one possible explanation (at least a contributing factor) to this could be that, as noted by physicist Freeman Dyson:

"...the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime."

If this effect has not been accurately modeled or sufficiently accounted for by climatologists, as suggested by Dyson's criticism here, this could at least partially explain the higher rate of climate change in the arctic and the relative stability in more temperate climates.

This new evidence also shows that while the immediate climate changes may be most pronounced in less populous areas, the effects of these changes are felt globally. If the most heavily populated areas of the world are not yet seeing substantial increases in temperature, they will soon see the effects of rising sea levels caused by this unquestionable arctic melting. The seriousness of any threat posed by these rising sea levels, and the ease or difficulty with which people will be able to deal with the changes, will of course vary from place to place. While Americans and Europeans will likely be able to relocate and adapt without extremely serious consequences, other extremely densely populated, poverty-stricken areas such as Bangladesh, India, and even along the Nile River Delta in Egypt may see widespread disruption as massive populations are forced out of their homes.

Once again, I must emphasize how important it is that freedom-minded individuals resist the urge to stick their heads in the sand and deny that climate change is occurring. Despite all the flawed theorizing and inaccurate modeling one may find, evidence like that presented by the above-mentioned study is not questionable, and must be recognized as indicating real changes. Recognizing this impending change does not imply approving of massive government action. In fact many of the problems associated with this issue are caused by government action, such as state subsidizing of people who choose to live in high-risk coastal areas.

In the absence of state intervention, people would be less likely to put themselves at risk, and it would be generally much easier for people to adapt to changes like those now being seen. This would happen because they would be in a better position to begin with (having not established residence in flood-prone areas due to unacceptable risk) and would furthermore have proper economic incentives to make safe choices.

The time for (more) libertarians to make their peace with the reality of global climate change is far past due, and the importance of drawing up workable alternatives to out-of-control statism grows with every day. A proper understanding of the relevant science and of economics will lead to highly effective answers that are perfectly compatible with the maintenance of freedom. All that remains is for libertarians to speak up.