The Northwest passage disappeared, sea ice was at its lowest in recorded history, and the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica are melting quicker than previously expected. Yet some still ask if taking action against global climate change is really the right step forward?

This question has me absolutely stumped, and quite honestly, a little baffled.

"Is taking action better than not taking action?"

Apparently, to suggest taking action against not taking action is a statement worthy of "making waves." Peter Tsigaris, a statistician at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, Canada, has been making some of those waves in his native country with this suggestion.

Now granted, his claims are directly related to the economy, and not so much the health of his planet around him, but let’s not dismiss it due to our failure in high school math. As much as we don’t want to admit it, economics is what will ultimately shape the change for the better.

Tsigaris points to a report delivered in 2006 by England’s Government Economic Service, which says that if people do not act to curb global warming, the impacts of climate change will drain at least 5 percent — and up to 20 percent — of the global gross domestic product each year. That is compared to an approximate one percent of the annual global GDP to act on it.

Yet still, some believe there is not enough information to act, and that there is still not enough evidence to prove that humans are behind the rise.

The important part of this to take away, though, is that it doesn’t matter who or what is behind global warming: the facts are that our planet is disappearing underneath rising waters.

Two further studies have recently been released that only add to the damning evidence that the world is in the midst of an unnatural global warming period.

Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC has used ice tracking satellite data from the past 30 years to determine the age of the ice.

By way of explanation, the age of an ice sheet is terribly important to its own survival. Back when I was a kid (1980s), the ice sheets could be expected to be around 5 years old, at an estimated 2 or 3 meters thick. The obvious benefit of thicker ice is that it is harder to melt away.

What Stroeve has found is that at the moment, the maximum age for ice seems to be sitting at around 2 or 3 years old, which is only just above a meter in thickness. "The ice is getting a lot younger in the Arctic," said Stroeve. "Much more of the Arctic is about 1 meter thick."

Compared to the 1980s, where age could even make it to 9 or 10 years old, the signs are not good.

Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University has also been conducting research, using satellite measurements from the past 26 years focusing on the Barents Sea (located north of Scandinavia). The ice edge in the area has been retreating over that time, and not just during the summer months.

The warming waters caused by global warming — also responsible the drop in ice age — is dropping the ice sheet like Muhammad Ali would an opponent.

Francis’ research, which is featured in a recent issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, showed that the rising temperature in the Barents Sea — 3 degrees Celsius over the last 27 years — is what is behind the lack of ice cover during winter.

But despite the continuing signs of impending doom and gloom, there are those out there that are intent on ensuring that we don’t fall into the line of thought that there is now nothing we can do to stem the tide (sorry).

Climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University is one such expert. "Sometimes we fear that we are delivering too morose a message and not conveying enough that there is reason for optimism," Mann said.

The most catastrophic of consequences are able to be avoided, according to these experts, as long as we do something now.

NASA’s James Hansen, who forecasts some of the bleakest outlooks on global warming, said in an e-mail: "I am always surprised when people get depressed rather than energized to do something. It’s not too late to stabilize climate."

Many other renowned thinkers are on this bandwagon as well, from Al Gore who says " …we can’t afford to [not act], it’s a genuine planetary emergency," to psychologist David Myers of Hope College in Holland, Michigan, who believes that humans are resilient enough to step up to the plate on this matter. "To do what climate researchers are doing," he stresses, "takes enough optimism to sustain their hope and enough realism to create their concern."

So we stand here, at the precipice, and look out at a world with a bright future, or a world with a bleak one. Everything else aside — the science, the fear, the politics and the slander — there is a choice to be made. While each individual has to make his or her own choice, s/he has to make it soon — there’s little time left to wait.

Global Warming Inaction More Costly Than Solutions?

Two more signals from Arctic sea ice

Scientists Hopeful Despite Climate Signs

More from GO

Global Warming Stinks Up Canadian Navy

Photograph by Greg Baker/AP