A decade long period of stability for Arctic's summer sea ice?

The large number of climate change scientists agree that the Arctic ice will eventually disappear completely during summer months if climate change continues at current pace. Some believe such scenario will very likely happen before the year 2050.

The several different studies have showed that in the last thirty years Arctic summer ice has shrunk by more than a third driven by unusual warm climate which cannot be only explained by natural causes.

One of the most interesting recent studies about the melting of Arctic ice comes from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). According to this study the Arctic ice may temporarily stabilize or even somewhat expand at times over the next few decades.

This was a rather interesting conclusion and the scientists were somewhat surprised by the results of computer simulations which showed a temporary stop to the loss of the Arctic ice.

The results of computer simulations showed that Arctic could well see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the expansion of the ice.

However, long-term speaking we are still in for a total loss of Arctic's summer sea ice. One of the leading NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay said that "when you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there's no escaping the loss of Arctic's ice in the summer."

Which country is most vulnerable to climate change?

Climate change will affect whole planet but some countries will be more affected than others. For instance if sea levels are about to rise according to scientific predictions then Bangladesh could soon disappear under the sea, and the same destiny could await some richer countries, like for instance Netherlands. When we talk about world's most powerful countries then many scientists see China as the country most vulnerable to climate change.

China is currently world's biggest polluter heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, most notably coal to keep its economic growth up and running. Despite big investments in renewable energy sector like wind energy and hydropower China is likely to remain heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, for at least couple of decades. The Current situation that China is in is really a tricky one because Chinese are aware that they have to curb greenhouse gas emissions but they do not want to sacrifice their economic boom to do so.

What is the impact of methane to climate change and global warming?

The greenhouse gas that mostly contributes to global warming and climate change is carbon dioxide (CO2). The second most harmful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming is methane(CH4). Methane is mostly emitted by agriculture(the most famous source comes from cows burping), though methane is also released from fossil fuels burning (coal and natural gas). Currently widely accepted conclusion is that methane is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide, meaning it is 25 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. However some latest studies imply that methane is much more potent than most scientists agree, up to 33 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2, at least this is what Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in its latest report.

How will climate change affect organisms on Earth?

Many scientists will agree that climate change is already happening, and that we cannot stop it. The only thing we can do is to make sure we do not give more impact to climate change, and this can be done by significantly decreasing global greenhouse gas emission levels. This is what most scientists agree upon but the one thing where there are still many different theories among scientists is how will climate change affect organisms on Earth. This is still in the sphere of theories and predictions, though most agree that climate change will have extremely negative impact on most organisms that live on our planet.

How much of carbon dioxide can oceans and forests absorb?

Brand new research from Bristol university team found rather surprising results that are in contradiction with similar researches done over the past years. According to this research the absorbed amount of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite the rise of emissions of carbon dioxide from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. Does this mean that oceans and forests have much larger CO2 sinking ability than we previously thought they have?

Canada will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

According to the Environment Canada, the country’s major environmental agency, Canada will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its 2020 targets because of emissions from tar sands. 

The rapid development of tar sands in Canada which injects steam into thick oil deposits to produce oil will account for 62 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2020, almost dwarfing 31 million metric tons in planned CO2 reductions as Canada’s power plants switch from burning coal to natural gas. 

The recent study by Canada’s Pembina Institute estimates that by 2020 Alberta’s tar sands will account for 12 percent of Canada’s total CO2 emissions. 

Tar sands will be the main reason why Canada will likely exceed its 2020 CO2 emissions reductions target by gigantic 178 million metric tons. 

The Canadian fossil fuel industry, as expected, has denied these reports claiming they are far blown out of proportion because new technologies being employed in tar sands will help significantly reduce emissions in the upcoming years. 

One thing is sure though, Canada has a very difficult task in reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in years to come.

Russia's permafrost melting will add to global climate change impact

Russia's permafrost melting could further increase global climate change impact as according to the latest scientific estimates Russia could lose 15-30 percent of its permafrost by the year 2050.

Permafrost refers to the soil that has been permanently frozen and it currently covers around 63% of Russia's territory. Once permafrost melts it will release massive amounts of greenhouse gas methane currently stored in the frozen soil which will add more impact to climate change.

Not only that, thawing of permafrost will also give huge problems to transportation, building, and energy extraction infrastructure, accounting also for huge economic damage.

The temperatures in western Siberia territories will rise by up to two degrees Celsius to just three or four degrees below zero which will result in shifting of the boundary of the permafrost to the north-east by 150-200 kilometres.

This negative news have come from the Andrei Bolov, the head of the ministry's disaster monitoring department. He also added that "the negative impact of permafrost degradation on all above-ground transportation infrastructure is clear.

There are no easy solutions for climate change

The ideal solution to solve the climate change issue would be turning carbon dioxide (CO2) into something useful such as fuel and plastics but the current scientific reports claim that this solution is years off, mostly because of very high construction costs.

Some pilot projects showed great promise such as manufacture of concrete, plastics and oils from carbon dioxide but the main drawbacks of all these pilot projects were high construction and operational costs.

Carbon capture and storage solutions that aim to store and bury carbon dioxide underground are also connected with relatively high costs but are currently receiving more attention than technologies that aim to transform CO2 into some useful products. However, these technologies have so far been used only in some regional pilot projects, still lacking global character.

This means that at this moment the only possible solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce global level of greenhouse gas emissions and this sadly cannot be achieved without the international climate deal.

International climate deal also looks to be years off because there is still a huge difference in opinion between developed and the developing world. The world leaders continue with their talks and promises but there's nothing concrete coming out of it. Hope for new climate deal seems to be fading away with each new disappointing talk.

At this moment there doesn't seem to be some easy solution to tackle climate change. There's no magic trick that will return climate back to the normal, the only solution at this time is to make a drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

Is our planet still warming?

It may not seem that way to us but scientists continue to claim that our planet is still warming, and that climate change is very much a reality we live in. This was the conclusion of the newest review of climate data that included 26 climate scientists from eight countries, and all these scientists agreed how Earth is really warming, and how the global warming could reach as high as 7 degrees temperature increase by the end of the century if greenhouse gases growth continues its current trend.

Is huge sea level rise likely to happen?

Most climate change predictions have concluded that sea levels will globally rise around 1 meter by the end of this century. Such sea level rise is already huge, but a major review of climate change in Antarctica conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)come up with even bigger numbers, namely that sea levels could rise 1,4m by the end of this century.

Hope to stop the climate change is already lost?

Climate talks have failed in the most important issue, namely to specify the carbon emission cuts, and the only thing that can be characterized as some sort of success is the "agreement" that outlined a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries and also promised to deliver $30bn of aid for developing nations over the next three years. These are significant commitments but are they enough for us to be optimistic?

Difficult to say. China and India did not want legally binding targets about carbon emissions because they want to continue their impressive economic growth at any cost, and though most delegates backed a US proposal that included limiting temperature rises to less than 2C, at the end the 193-nation summit ended with delegates taking "note" of the deal. Taking note is definitely not enough.

Though you have the general feeling like for the first time in human history both developed and developing countries look ready to fight the climate change problem, somehow it still looks like the differences between these countries are still making things extremely difficult in reaching new climate deal.

And the result of this is that we now have a declaration, instead of legally obliging deal. So much hopes, so much talks, so much world leaders on one place, such an important issues, and all we have is a declaration. It should have been so much more.

Climate talks will likely be the main topic in the upcoming months but from the current point of view it definitely does not look like the climate deal will be struck in any time soon.

After so many months of hope, hope that world has finally reach the point to put aside the difference in opinion, and struck deal about this vital issue, all we are left with is an empty accord with no legally binding targets, and no money guaranteed to be over and above existing aid budgets.

World has yet again showed its true face by showing how little we care for our planet. Pathetic and embarrassing.

Germany to continue with significant CO2 reduction targets

Despite the climate deal has very much failed this will not stop Germany to continue with very ambitious target of 40% less CO2 emissions by 2020. Of course to do so, the emphasis will be on even bigger share of renewable energy sources in domestic energy supply. This highly industrialized country is the sixth largest CO2 emitter in the world, and any significant decrease from its part would be more than welcome to tackle climate change on global level.

This won't be very easy to do, because Germany being highly industrialized country, also has some powerful industry lobbies that have already started talking how such ambitious target would hurt German industry too much, causing lot of people to lose their jobs.

On the other hand such CO2 reduction target could also give further boost to German renewable energy sector, and could give German economy the edge in the clean energy race.

Since Copenhagen climate deal turned out to be a major setback, world really needs much more positive examples, or otherwise temperature increase will cause devastating damage to our planet, and irreversibly change our current way of life. It is nice to see that some countries are well aware of that.

From the current point of view it certainly looks like the Germany will be the leading country, and the driving force behind the EU's clean energy policy.

Forests are the best ally in fight against climate change

Though Copenhagen climate deal turned out to be one major disappointment still almost all world leaders agreed that one of the most important thing to do to tackle climate change is to save our forests, particularly rainforests that play one of the most important roles in regulating climate on our planet. Has world finally started realizing how important our forests and rainforests really are?

Forests do not only help regulate climate by absorbing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere but they are also the home to millions of plants and animals, and also protect soils and watersheds from erosion. Of course, in fight against the climate change their most wanted ability is to store carbon by absorbing greenhouse gases and preventing their release into the atmosphere.

So how can we save our forests that are so vital ally in fight against the climate change? Currently the most popular idea is that rich countries pay developing nations to protect and manage their tropical forests in order to reduce the global carbon emissions that result from massive deforestation. The largest rainforests in the world belong to developing countries, and without money from rich countries they will continue to destroy forests to primarily make more rooms for farms and more cattle pasture areas.

Globally deforestaion is the second main cause of global warming problem behind fossil fuels burning, and we would do great deal for tackling the climate change by halting deforestation. The solution really looks to be simple, namely the developed countries pay for the right to emit carbon emissions, and developing nations with vast forest areas are paid to keep these forests intact.

But in order for this solution to work it is vital to ensure that the money ends up in right place, and not in pockets of dirty politicians. This could be a big problem because many developed countries are struggling with corruption problems, and it would definitely not be easy to unsure the total transparency of the funds.

This problem still shouldn't prevent rich countries to finance funds against deforestation. All what these countries need to ensure is some sort of mechanisms that would ensure total transparency of these funds to ensure that money will end up in the right place. We must not forget that by saving our forests we are also saving the future of our planet.

Water vapor - Effect on climate change

According to the latest scientific study the water vapor plays much bigger role in global warming phenomenon than previously expected, and according to the new study a 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface significantly increased the impact on global warming. The results of this study could also explain the mystery of why temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

The satellite images show that water vapor was increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000, and according to the scientists these ups and downs occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they played the biggest possible role on climate.

Water vapor is one of the less known greenhouse gases, not as famous as its close relatives carbon dioxide, and methane but still important part of greenhouse gases family that plays crucial role in climate change.

Satellite images show that water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent in the last 10 years, and reasons for that are still unknown. Though we still don't know the reason of this decrease, this was quite helpful scenario that was mainly responsible for cooling by causing surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, with the ongoing increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Scientists have also concluded that an increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming by about 30 percent. Once the mystery what triggers the increase and decrease in stratospheric water vapor gets solved we will know much more about the role of water vapor in climate change.

How will climate change impact water supplies?

Climate change experts agree that climate change will have very negative impact on global water supplies. Many impact of global warming are connected with water supplies. The list includes melting glaciers, heat waves, cyclones or water-borne diseases such as cholera, desertification, and floods.

Climate change will result in shortage of water, and shortage of water could lead to open conflicts, and even wars between some countries. People will only see how precious water really is once there won't be enough water, and this could happen in not so far future from now.

Shortage of water presents by many the most important threat to future peace in the world, and many countries should already start to cooperate in searching for the best possible solutions to overcome water shortages in years to come.

The most affected regions will be Central Asia and northern Africa. According to latest U.N. estimates up to 250 million people in Africa could suffer from insufficient water supplies by 2020.

Water issue will very soon become the most important issues though currently many people do not see it so important. But once water shortages become more frequent many people will see why the water is the most precious resource on our planet.

It would be wise to count how much water we are using for certain "not so relevant" uses, for instance one study showed that it took 15,000 litres to produce a pair of blue jeans. Such examples definitely do not help water conservation cause. Industrial water use should be definitely put under the magnifier.

What should the world first do against the climate change?

If we accept the current dominant climate change theory then climate change is already happening with the worst yet to come once temperatures increase too much. This means that we cannot stop climate change since climate change is already here, and the only two things we can do is make sure not to increase climate change impact even further, and also to adapt to new climate conditions the best we can.

In order not to make things even worse we should significantly decrease the amount of CO2 emissions that are released in atmosphere. Fossil fuels burning is the main reason behind excessive emissions so we should be doing everything that is in our power to replace fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy sources. Sadly, energy demand keeps on growing, and clean energy sources are still not developed enough to provide significant share of world's total energy since they lack both tradition, as well as powerful lobbies that would support them.

If we accept the fact that climate change impact will become more powerful as the years will go by then each country must do its maximum to ensure painless adaptation to new climate change. Rich countries shouldn't have too much problem with it but what about poor developing countries? Dozens billions of dollar each year are needed to ensure the best possible adaptation to climate change for developing countries, and as climate conditions will become worse even more money will be needed with each new year.

Developing countries feel that the rich countries are not to be trusted since many of them have broken their promises to cut their own emissions which has created mistrust on global level that is definitely one of the main reasons that certainly played major role in undermining climate talks in Copenhagen.

But the positive factor in this whole story could be the global clean energy race. Clean energy sources are becoming increasingly popular, and it looks like all the big players want not only to participate in this race but have also set their sights on medals.

However, international climate deal is still needed, because political promises are worthless without legally binding document. Hopefully next climate talks will be able to deliver the international climate deal, so the world could actually witness that not all political promises are false.

Climate change impact on forests and rainforests - Facts

Forests, especially rainforests play vital role in decreasing the impact of climate change because they absorb large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is the reason why forests are sometimes called as "the nature's answer to global warming".

With the increased temperatures that are expected in years to come there will be also an increased chance of wildfires and they are very likely to become more frequent and powerful enough to destroy many of forests on our planet.

Old tropical rainforests that are absorbing the most of carbon emission are disappearing very fast because of high rates of deforestation.

Current rates of deforestation in many parts of the world are horrific and with less forests remaining less CO2 can be absorbed from the atmosphere.

Old ancient rainforests absorb most of CO2, and they should be preserved at any cost if we want to avoid the worst of climate change. Rainforests are also home to many unique species, and areas with he richest biodiversity in the world so if we destroy them many animal species will go extinct.

Old ancient rainforests absorb large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere which prevents further temperature increase.

The world's largest rainforest is Amazon rainforest. Deforestation of Amazon rainforest contributes to three quarters of total Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions.

Forest funding is one of the best options to stop deforestation in developing countries and should be used much more if we want to preserve our forests and rainforests.

Deforestation on global level is responsible for about one fifth of total world's greenhouse emissions. The more forest we lose the more CO2 remains in the atmosphere.

Stronger evidence for human caused climate change

Despite the recent increase in number of climate change skeptics due to some controversies about former climate change studies majority of the scientists still believe that human activity caused climate change, and that climate change impact is becoming stronger and stronger.

The UK Met Office study, after assessing 110 research papers on the climate change concluded that the climate change evidence is stronger now compared to time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out its last assessment in 2007.

According to this report our climate is changing rapidly, and mostly due to the increase in greenhouse gases that are result of human activity (fossil fuels burning).

What scientists in this study did found out is that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate, and all these factors point out to the global picture of warming world.

This study hasn't only looked at the regional and global temperatures but also the changes in Arctic sea ice, changes in rainfall patterns, and humidity of atmosphere. And according to Dr Stott, one of the lead authors of this study "all these different aspects of the climate system are adding up to a picture of the effects of a human influence on our climate."

And yet despite so many studies that say how Earth is changing rapidly because of human caused climate change world is still not doing necessary things to halt further strengthening of the climate change impact. The same old story again and again, lots of talk and promises, and no necessary action.

Climate change not the biggest factor responsible for Arctic ice melting?

Arctic sea ice has been shrinking rapidly in the last few decades, and this has lead to popular belief among many climate change scientists that Arctic region has already passed a climate tipping point, meaning that even bigger loss of sea ice is expected in years to come, and that very soon Arctic ocean could be ice-free during the summer months.

The latest study by Masayo Ogi, a scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, and her colleagues does not question that climate change also played important role in Arctic sea ice loss but that there is one factor that could be even more important in explaining loss of Arctic sea ice. That factor are Arctic winds.

Ogi and her colleagues found that changes in Arctic wind patterns, such as summertime winds that blow clockwise around the Beaufort Sea, seemed to coincide with years where sea ice loss was highest, and that the ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the Arctic sea ice loss trend in the last 30 years.

Arctic winds could be one of the major factors responsible for the loss of Arctic sea ice in the last 30 years.

The power of these winds has increased recently, and this could explain the current trend of decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.

In the last 30 years, the Arctic ice has shrunk by about 10% a decade, which is around 28,000 square miles each year. The ice reaches its minimum coverage each September, when it begins to expand as the freezing Arctic winter takes hold.

According to this study both winter and summer winds could have been responsible for blowing ice out of the Arctic in the last 30 years. Other factors were also responsible for loss of Arctic sea ice, like increased temperatures of air and ocean.

Why humanity won't win a fight against climate change?

James Lovelock, a real legend when it comes to environmentalism, and the founder of the idea that our planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory, has recently given very simple explanation why humans won't stop climate change, namely because humans are too stupid.

Lovelock said that he doesn't believe how humans have yet to evolve to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change, and that only a catastrophic event of great magnitude (for instance collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level) would be able to persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough.

It is become rather clear that another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report won't be enough to force the world to an immediate action, especially not after the panel was heavily criticized over a mistaken claim that all Himalayan glaciers are likely to melt by 2030.

The number of climate change skeptics seems to be growing lately, and I also believe that world will fail to react to climate change before some catastrophic event of gigantic proportions. The most worrying part in this whole story is that once climate change starts showing its scary face we'll have very limited options to do something about it.

The main problem with the adequate response to climate change is that there are so many different interests involved, especially on global level, and lets face it humanity doesn't exactly have positive experiences about solving matters on global level. If that was the case then hunger and wars would be long forgotten by now.

Humans are indeed stupid, stupid in their selfishness which blinds them to see things from global perspective. Global interests should be above the individual interests, that is common logic, but sadly when it comes to individual interests greed destroys any logic. The Copenhagen failure was the best example of our civilization's immaturity, and things still do not look as they could improve any time now.

Is climate change issue still on top of the world political agenda?

The Copenhagen deal can be characterized as one big failure where world leaders showed to the public that not only do they fail to realize the seriousness of climate change threat but that there is also no cohesion on global level that would create an adequate atmosphere for one big global political decision needed for new climate change agreement.

We'll very soon discover where exactly is the place of climate change issue on the world political agenda as negotiators will in few days time meet in Bonn for the first official talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since the Copenhagen failure the overall feeling has been gloom and doom and many environmentalists fear that many political leaders have lost will to agree on new climate change deal.

The number of climate skeptics (supported by domestic fossil fuel industries) experienced significant growth in the last few months, especially after some mistakes have been found in official climate change predictions.

The current mission should primarily be focused on how to breathe life into the Copenhagen summit's only positive outcome- the Copenhagen Accord that set the goal of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), and also promised 30 billion dollars (22 billion euros) for climate-vulnerable poor countries up to to 2012, and as much as 100 billion dollars annually by 2020.

Since this accord has no deadline or some kind of guideline for reaching the warming target and its pledges are only voluntary many doubt its value, and politicians will in few days have the chance the prove the critics wrong.

This meeting will be very important as it can either restore the lost confidence in new climate change deal or it can destroy even this slim hope in reaching new climate deal that currently exists.

As said before world lacks cohesion on global level so I fear that even this slim hope in reaching new climate deal could be destroyed. Hopefully, I'm wrong on this one.

Humanity is still too shallow for new climate deal

The world still hasn't matured enough when global interests are at stake, and thus we are very unlikely to see new climate deal in any time soon. The differences in opinions between the countries, and lack of political will is making new climate deal impossible to reach, and once again the humanity has showed that our civilization isn't exactly as advanced as many think it is. Well, at least not from ethical, environmental, and logical point of view.

The same old story over and over again. The science says to us please stop emitting so much greenhouse gases, they present us with various reports about what is climate change doing in form of ice melting, droughts, animals disappearing, etc, and then we see some weak public support which in the end results in some false political promise about the necessity of immediate action. Once this promise needs to be fulfilled the politics controlled by powerful oil and other fossil fuel lobbies says that we must wait for better times, and here we go again, one more time spinning in the circle. Over and over again. Will this circle ever be broken?

The money is in the hand of powerful fossil fuel lobbies that control politics. Without politics we can't make any global decision, and politics is always the game of interests, especially on global level. All countries are driven by their own interests instead by supporting global cause. And this global cause isn't some small issue, what we are talking about here is something that could have long-term effect on our planet's health, and the life of our future generations.

But then again this is only environmental issue, and who cares about the environment? Well some of us do, but sadly there are too little of us to make the difference on global level. When it comes to choice between going for money or for something that could actually help our planet the ones with power always choose money. Always. Why? Because greed for money runs in their blood.

In such an atmosphere even the biggest optimists might feel the wind of change drifting the other way. Will this wind ever change direction? I'm the one of those who believe that only some major catastrophe caused by climate change could change the direction of this wind. One huge disaster looks to be the only thing that could make us see through the righteous eyes, where we could be finally able to separate the right from the wrong, and remove almighty dollar from the pedestal of our civilization's values.

This shallow, empty humanity was sleeping for so long that it can only be wakened by some catastrophe of major proportions.

Latest data shows climate change is still on

Despite the recent increase in number of climate change skeptics, the climate change is still on, especially after the latest NOAA's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) report which showed that world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record.

If land and ocean temperatures get separated then the ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March on record and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record.

Oceans are becoming more and more warmer.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).

The report also stated that warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada while cooler-than-normal conditions dominated Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United States.

Arctic sea ice covered an average of 5.8 million square miles during March which is 4.1 percent below the 1979-2000 average expanse, and the fifth-smallest March coverage since records began in 1979. This was in fact the 17th consecutive March with below-average Arctic sea ice coverage.

NOAA's monthly reports have become traditional source of information about changes in global climate. This report also has practical value as it offers farmers information about what and when to plant, it helps guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

Is it possible to completely eliminate CO2 emissions in the next few decades?

A new climate change deal that recently so miserably failed was all about reducing the amount of greenhouse gases (most notably CO2 emissions) in order to stop a further strengthening of the climate change impact. Can world really reduce the amount of carbon emissions in years to come? Well some scientists are even convinced that we can not only significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions but also to eliminate these emissions completely. Sounds too optimistic for you? Well, you're not the only one.

The scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Columbia University Earth Institute, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and 2030 Inc./Architecture 2030 have said that the global climate change problem becomes solvable only if society deals quickly with carbon emissions from burning coal in electric power plants.

These scientists are also convinced that the United States could completely eliminate carbon emissions from coal-fired electric power plants within 20 years by using technology that already exists or could be commercially available within a decade.

Their strategies in achieving this include elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, putting higher prices on carbon emissions; major improvements in electricity transmission and the energy efficiency of homes, commercial buildings, and appliances; replacing coal power with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and third-generation nuclear power; and after successful demonstration at commercial scales, deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants; and carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants.

These strategies definitely sound good on paper but I would like to see them in real life. Are people ready to pay extra high energy prices, are renewable energy sources capable to replace coal in the next few decades? I believe the answer to both of these above questions is no, and therefore I do not see how we could transform this strategy into a real life.

Don't get me wrong, I would gladly pay higher energy prices, and would be more than happy if renewable energy technologies could mature enough in the next few decades to become cost-competitive with fossil fuels but I just don't see this coming.

Renewable energy can be considered only as some form of long-term solution to climate change problem. Many would say how come long-term solution since many energy experts predict dominance of renewable energy even before the end of this century so we are only talking about 50 years or so? 50 years or so is sadly very long lifespan given the current pace of climate change, and if current climate change predictions are true we don't have luxury of the next 50 years at our disposal to make things happen.

Therefore our only chance is some breakthrough science discovery that would somehow turn fossil fuels into clean energy sources, or that would somehow enable us an extremely rapid development of certain renewable energy source(s). I seriously doubt that anything else can really help us against climate change. In real life, that is.

Climate change - Artificial clouds as the solution?

One of the richest men in the world, Bill Gates, is funding research into devices that would be able to suck up ten tonnes of seawater every second and spray it upwards which would enable the creation of white clouds to reflect the Sun’s rays away from Earth thus preventing the further warming of our planet. This technology is called sunshielding technology, and the first trials to test this technology are already being planned.

Given that the new climate deal doesn't look very likely to be agreed in the next few years it is very realistic to expect that carbon emissions will continue to rise which means that science has to consider every possible action to tackle climate change. When it comes to sunshielding technology then many scientists will tell you that this is probably the most benign of all geoengineering technologies (different artificial methods to cool our planet).

Last year's study has revealed the potential of sunshielding technology and according to the results of this study a fleet of 1,900 ships costing around $7 billion could stop the rise in temperature by criss-crossing the oceans and spraying seawater from tall funnels to whiten clouds which increases their reflectivity.

Sunshielding technology or as some called it "whitening the clouds" looks to be much less hazardous to use compared with other geoengineering methods because the worst thing it can do is to alter rainfall, and the effects of this would end after machines were shut down. Other geoengineering techniques usually include long term effects, and are thus more hazardous compared to sunshielding.

The trial test will include ten ships and 10,000sq km (3,800sq miles) of ocean, and it would be very interesting to see the outcome of it. Many scientists are still anything but convinced in geoengineering solutions seeing them as very expensive and also hazardous methods that could result in unwanted consequences.

After world leaders failed to deliver new climate deal science must step up its efforts, and find other solutions to tackle climate change. If currently dominant scientific predictions about climate change are true then we really have very little time to act meaning that we could be soon forced to try the unorthodox solutions like geoengineering. I mean what other options do we have? Waiting for miracle?

Is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still trustworthy?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definitely lost some of its authority after some mistakes, most notably the statement that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, were discovered as this gave plenty of ammo to climate change sceptics and fossil fuel lobbies.

Media was very quick to react on this, and these mistakes are certainly one of the reasons why the number of climate change skeptics has somewhat increased in the last couple of months or so.

Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, recently admitted this error by naming it "human failure" that shouldn't have happened. Some media has already labeled IPCC's reports as "grey literature" describing them as something that doesn't have the necessary scientific background, and is more subject of speculation rather than actual science.

Mistakes can always happen we all know that but this was rather big mistake that has come in the totally wrong time. Why? Because world still needs to agree on new climate deal, and any doubt about climate change will be heavily used by politicians and fossil fuel lobbies to further delay this necessary agreement.

The damage has been done, and we are talking about significant damage, and from now on many will question IPCC's reports despite the fact that overall looking glaciers are indeed in serious decline.

IPCC has to make sure there are no more mistakes of such magnitude because one more mistake like this and this once very respected body can kiss its authority goodbye. Climate change is very delicate political issue, and science needs to be conclusive, comprehensive, and of course free of speculations.