SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
marshallz10

No doubts global warming isreal

marshallz10
20 years ago

Wonder what the Boss will say about this article issuing from govt scientists,


No Doubts Global Warming

Is Real Say US Experts

12-5-3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said.


Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say -- contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.


"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate," wrote Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.


"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise," they added in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.


Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90 percent probability that average global temperatures will rise by between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 and 4.9 degrees Celsius) because of human influences on climate.


Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers, inundating coastal areas. Many other groups have already shown that ice in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica is melting quickly.


Karl and Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 percent since preindustrial times.


Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming temperatures by trapping the Sun's energy in the atmosphere.


Emissions of sulfate and soot particles have significant effects too, but more localized, they said.


"Given what has happened to date and is projected in the future, significant further climate change is guaranteed," they wrote.


The United States has balked at signing international treaties to reduce climate-changing emissions, but the two experts said global cooperation is key.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

In their journal paper, the authors conclude:

"We are entering the unknown with our climate. We need a global climate observing system, but only parts of it exist. We must not only take the vital signs of the planet but also assess why they are fluctuating and changing. Consequently, the system must embrace comprehensive analysis and assessment as integral components on an ongoing basis, as well as innovative research to better interpret results and improve our diagnostic capabilities. Projections into the future are part of such activity, and all aspects of an Earth information system feed into planning for the future, whether by planned adaptation or mitigation. Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge. It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action."


SEE HYPERLINK BELOW

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEE ALSO:

CLIMATE: Northern High-Latitude Warming

---------------------------------------------------------------------------H.

Jesse Smith

The high latitudes are particularly sensitive to climate change and are

thus good regions in which to look for early signs of global warming.

Comiso presents measurements of surface temperature for the whole Arctic

from 1981 to 2001, made using satellite thermal infrared data. Large

warming anomalies were seen over sea ice, Eurasia, and North America, but

no change or a slight cooling was observed over Greenland. Temperature

increases were steeper during the 1990s than during the 1980s. This warming

increased the melt season by 10 to 17 days per decade and was eight times

more rapid than the average for the previous 100 years. The substantial

increase in the rate of warming in the Arctic may be associated with the

recent change in the phase of the Arctic Oscillation or the increase of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. -- HJS

J. Clim.16, 3498 (2003).

Here is a link that might be useful: Modern Global Climate Change

Comments (100)

  • spewey
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm a bit skeptical. Here at least, it is noticeably cooler than it was just a month or two ago.

  • wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Now that you mention it, it has been cooler lately here than in August! Actually 2 cooler summers in a row here doesn't impress "them" either.

  • Related Discussions

    Will Global Warming Affect Gardening?

    Q

    Comments (94)
    ok, now we're getting into alot of specifics here. The North Pole has not always been covered in ice, even in recent history. Also, where did the name Greenland come from? or Vinland, for that matter ? These are very northern areas, yet in (relatively) modern times appear to have been quite a bit warmer. Again, I want to reiterate that I am absolutely NOT for pollution, but I just don't think that we are causing significant climate change. Another sticky point: there is no way to measure "average" temperature. In fact, there really is no such thing. I have a friend who is a biochemist who has a company that makes viral cultures in a "large" reactor. Large meaning about 50 gallons. He tells me that there is absolutely no way for him to measure the temperature of the solution to an accuracy of better than 2 degrees fahrenheit. HE'S A SCIENTIST. And we're supposed to believe that we can measure the "average" temperature of the earth, a much more chaotic system, to accuracies of 0.2 degrees? This is ridiculous in the extreme. My sincere hope is that this whole climate change fad is really a masterful way to convince people to switch to nuclear power instead of burning hydrocarbons for electricity generation. Perhaps that's all it is -- get the environmentalists to start backing nuclear power. And that would be a very good thing for the world. Wayne
    ...See More

    global warming my a$$...

    Q

    Comments (12)
    I agree with kiwinut. We will have this extreme type of mood swings in the weather. There is global climate change as yourselves have felt. For us here in Northern California, the trend will be for the better for some time. We had the most perfect spring ever! My Flavorella's heavily loaded the first time. It's been more than a month of perfect spring time weather. All of my plums are loaded from the toes to their tips, literally. Very minimal diseases in all fruit types. Our price to pay is the driest season in decade! there's always price to pay somewhere or in some form. Side effect of global warming, some regions would benefit while many will suffer. There will be mood swings. Whatever happened to Spring?, Whatever happened to Winter? Is this Summer? Why do we have the busiest fire season ever? Fire season already starting in spring? Global climate change is complex, but I know without a doubt mankind has contributed to this change.
    ...See More

    Global Warming, Dimming, Destruction and Change

    Q

    Comments (31)
    "Gewiss! Seguro! Oui!" or as Curly of the Three Stooges would say "Why Soitenly!" You don't need blame to face a problem. You just say "Hey, that's a problem. Let's see now ... how can we fix that?" Let me throw a big word out there that I learned a long time ago ... Tautology This word has a lot to do with repetition and the dictionary will tell you that the nature of the repetition is needless or useless. How does it apply to this discussion? Well on the face of it, I would have you know that once you have encountered a problem, it is indeed useless to go and repeat the same encounter with the problem. In my own mind, I relate it to the more auto-actualization or reactive nature of rational beings like humans. We learn to drive a car and it comes naturally. After we master it, we no longer devote any mental energy to it. If there is a problem with the way we drive an automobile, we no longer think about it or devote any rational mental resources to it. We just go about it by rote. But in fact, there were problems with driving automobiles all through its history. And to get us all to change, we had to be hit in the face with a shovel, changing laws, taxes on fuels and finally, hybrids and alternative fuels. But before we are forced to change, we cling to the tautological repetition of the problem. In immediate terms, it is a less expensive solution in terms of brain power; We refuse to expend any energy on the problem, unless forced to. So, the long term problem escapes solution, if left to ourselves as individuals. Thankfully, there are enough of us that some of us see the train coming, step off the tracks and start yelling at everyone else on that tracks that the train is coming. Some folks have described this tautological nature of mankind as 'The Frog in The Frying Pan'. The frog is at first comfortable sitting in the frying pan. As the heat is turned up ever so slowly, the frog doesn't budge. It doesn't want to make the effort to analyze the problem and eventually, we have a frog that 1) leaps out of the frying pan with a burned underside and feet or 2) a fried frog. Our nature then can be very reactive and much less disciplined, especially if we feel that the change threatens us - greater expenses or some associated cost, having to learn something new, etc.. We react first and learn later ( if at all ). Many people in fact, fear change for reasons such as these. Fewer thrive on it. So, the tautological nature of humanity, based on the way the human brain operates by rote as a means of keeping rational energy expenses low, combined with fear of change ... makes people behave in cyclic or repetitive ways which most of the time is not a problem, even if the repetition is useless. But sometimes, it traps us into a cycle that is self destructive. A person who understands what I have just said then, will realize that the human mind can both, fall into the trap of potentially destructive tautological functioning, but also, that the human mind can be trained. They then set about disciplining themselves, so that when they face a problem, they avoid defensiveness and the tendency to avoid expending rational energy and acceptance of rote repetition. They train themselves instead to react by recognizing that the problem may possibly be real and further, to trigger the expediture in rational energy to analyze it. By doing so, they evolve solutions and either adapt to change by changing their ways or auto-effect change, something most folks are not often capable of. They are the first to step off the tracks in the face of an approaching train and warn the others. 'Thinking outside the box' is therefore a bit different than what you may have always accepted it to mean. Many people don't even conceptualize that the box has an inside and an outside. I prefer not to be a frog in a frying pan. But in reality, sometimes even I do not avoid it. And I have for a long time now, practiced disciplining my mind to react by expending the rational energy, hopefully, not needlessly. BTW: Crisis management is well, tautology in action, after the shovel hits someone in the face. :) Hmmm. I suppose I can be long-winded and wordy at times. People have told me that. Luckily, flapping ones lips doesn't prevent ones feet from letting them step off the railroad tracks.
    ...See More

    Global Warming

    Q

    Comments (7)
    I also don't see the connection between ferts & Global Warming. But, ignoring that...yes, we are concerned & it is part of our everyday vocabulary. I foresee New England's climate changing considerably. I expect great volitivity not just the normal to every area, "Oh, wait ten minutes & the weather will change". It seems, from my weather here on CT's SE coast that spring is getting much cooler & fall is lasting longer & is much warmer. That's going to change what I plant, where I plant, & how I winterize. What we are most concerned about with regards to Global Warming & agricultural/horticulture is our food crops. I expect to see large scale crop failures become the norm from corn in Iowa to watermelon in Texas. California had record freezes this winter...even along the SoCA coast. California provides nearly a quarter of the food this country consumes. Large scale crop failures in CA will be felt around the world. We need to be developing strains of food crops that will survive the climate changes. It seems almost impossible since we're not yet sure exactly what next year will bring. But more droughts, more severe storms both winter & summer, higher rainfall in some locales, & a change in planting times seems inevitable. I have already written to our Cooperative Extension expressing concern & asking if anything was being done in CT towards experimenting with different strains of corn, for example. I've received nary a response from them. I do speak with friends/neighbors about Global Warming. For some, it sparks political outrage but most have a cavalier, "what can I do" attitude. Or, they fail to see any ramifications other than if the skiing is good, or not, on President's Day weekend. People in America are so removed from the food source many, if not most, do not understand that this thing called Global Warming can affect them. I expect to lose our sugar maples (too warm); I expect we'll also lose the white birch for the same reason. I expect in ten years lilacs will not bloom well in southern New England nor will peonies be reliable. I expect overwintering lavender, succulents, & things such as high desert plants will be even more difficult because of increased late winter/early spring heavy cold rains which leads to rot. I expect to lose more plants due to lack of snow cover. I expect to see more ice where the snow should have been. I expect to have my home flooded out either from Nor'easter or Hurricane as each new, successive storm becomes a bit stronger & erodes our coastline. I anticipate getting trees like 'Butterflies' magnolia to bloom will be almost impossible due to late spring hard, killing frosts that destroy the early blooming buds. Yes, I think things are changing. Tricia
    ...See More
  • gardengardengardenga
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    looks like NASA at least has reports to show for all the funding that it requires. DH is a sci-fi and a NASA nut, so he is all for exploration in any direction NASA goes and with great priority...and while I think that glaciation is still a possibility as all of it is one big cycle anyways...I mean once we go through the worse of global warming, then it would seem to me that the next cycle would be back to the ice age and start all over again...unless well unless damage in the heat got too hot and well, somehow life would find form to exist in.

    The bays up here in Maine, many years ago (50 years or so ago) per my ILs, that the bays here that housed many islands all froze so deeply that trucks could be driven over them. So for construction trucks and mail trucks to drive across a frozen atlantic bay about 1/2 mile or so seems more severe than what has been around here now. The most severe I've seen is thin layers along the beach freeze up, but never solid enough to ever drive on and only in low tide like areas.

    I was thinking that plant species also indicate climate changes. I ve never heard stories about any species having changed die to climate to my knowledge ( ducking and thinking that I will now get educated with some new news otherwise!)

    I think I'll do a google search on zone changes over the past centuries and see what happens.

  • joepyeweed
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    the plant changes are evident in that many plants that werent considered say zone 5 hardy - now are taking over (ie. garlic mustard and kudzu) - they are early to leaf and/or late to drop; which in a normal zone 5 climate leaves covered in ice and snow would be damaging to the entire plant. the plants that evolved here grew their leaves later and dropped them earlier to prevent damage from snow and frost. it is a noticeable trend among plants that are being listed as invasive in the colder climates...

  • gardengardengardenga
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    So the evolution of plants is creating an invasive threat to ecological diversity...go figure and trying to eliminate them would help otherwise less agressive plants to mutate and encouraged a better ecosystem? not necessarily, it seems ironic all of it to me.

    Well on that note I'll try not to figure out the politics of plants for the rest of the evening and leave you all in cyber world, to go do domestic chores.

    Cheers my friends,
    (Garden)4

  • joepyeweed
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    the plant changes i was referring to may be caused by "global warming" and not really normal plant evolution... what i meant to infer is that global warming is enabling aggressive plants to grow in areas that they normally would not be able to grow because winters are shorter, snow falls are becoming later in the fall and ending sooner in the spring... its somewhat evident by looking at the growing trends of the so called invasive species...compared to the local ecology... and it makes sense when compared to global warming...

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    G4, I am not sure that I am understanding your conclusions. There is nothing political or conscious about changing natural populations of plants and animals as far as the fauna and flora are concerned. Many of the changes that we associate with "climate change" are the unnatural reactions to expanding human disturbances of the original ecosystems. Some species are "weedier" than others and thrive in more (human) disturbed environments. Others with much more specific habitat requirements will loose out, even in the absence of human interference, with even minor environmental changes.

    Natural ecosystems were and are never "permanent" but change as regional and local conditions change. We can declare officially that the species taking advantage of climate change or habitat disturbance are "alien invasives", but these species are only occupying habitats for which they are adapted.

    The threat to ecological diversity that you deplore is more human-caused that environment-caused. To blame the alien organisms is profounding misleading.

  • gardengardengardenga
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Marshall, I agree with you in regards that the human-caused is exactly the issue I was talking about in regards to politics.

    What I see upsetting is that once the diversity is upset and plants are doing their thing to survive, there seems to be a heroic-like attempt to what looks to be a rescue of the newly changed ecosystems, which will require massive chemical treatments to irradicate invasives.(P-intervention)

    I am reminded of the DOT who mass planted for errosion control all over our public highways as seed which was known as a very aggressive grower. I guess that the plantings were a member of the mint family and the rhizones could move quickly to aid in errosion plobematic areas. And it worked so well that now it is illegal to grow and methods to irradicate it are becoming more chemical dependant and in stronger measures. It makes me wonder if the plant did not become tolerant of the herbicide itself. That is what I mean by political.
    Had not the plant been used massively, there is no way the seed could have been introduced in such levels except as humans did. So now its the big opps, sorry, it will take $$ to fix the problem. And now that plant ( which many people admire and enjoy) is illegal in most of the usa. The only known preditor is not indigenous in the usa soits introduction may also have implications to our ecosystem that again will be altered to some effect and offers caution by political perspectives.

    Inconclusion I would say that its all an oxymoron. Or a cycle that got broken and the bandaid isnt working!

    Its too bad because I understand that some of these plants have medicinal properties or food properties which we could be taking better advantage of.

    Not being a chemist or in the pharm career, I still buy medication from the drug store if I ever need them. So I would probaaably never be dependent on these plants.

    As of today, I cant remember the last time I needed anything as far as over the counter medication- even asprin, except there was that time...while giving birth to my last child four years ago- I begged my midwife for a pain shot who I earlier had her promise not to give me anything no matter what! I think it was a placebo though, lol.

    I am not against medication and prescriptions, its just that I havent had a need yet to use anything.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Guess what, folks? The Kyoto Protocol is now officially an international program, having just been OK'ed by the Russian lower legislative branch, thus reaching the minimum number of voting countries to start the Kyoto process come Jan. 2005.

    ---------------------------------

    Oct 22
    Russia's Duma Backs Kyoto
    Russia's Duma voted to approve ratification of the Kyoto Protocol today, giving the treaty the full official support of the Russian government. Russia's ratification was all that was needed for the global warming treaty to become international law beginning in January 2005.

    The United States and Australia are the only two major industrial powers to not back the treaty, but businesses with overseas operations will be affected.

  • nothotsuga
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Columbia research reveals that Gulf Stream is not responsible for mild winters in Europe

    This is ludicrous.
    First there is not only one cause to explain the differences in climate. It is obvious that a warm ocean will warm the air above it, and limit the cooling in Winter.
    Second if one will only look at an European map with the January isotherms, he will understand that the Oceanic current is indeed playing a key role in the European climate. Otherwise how will one explain that the January mean temperatures are the same in Bergen 60N and Lyon 46N? And with minimal average temperatures lower in Lyon than in Bergen?
    Moreover the little ice age is best explained so far by a "weakening" of the Gulf Stream...

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
    By Chuck Schoffner
    Associated Press
    posted: 27 October 2004
    12:53 pm ET

    IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

    "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

    Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

    Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

    "This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

    Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

    These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

    Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

    He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.

    White House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate change, noting that President Bush pointed out in a 2001 speech that greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.

    Last December, the administration said it was planning a five-year program to research global warming and climate change.

    Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry in the presidential election.

    "He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change problems," Hansen said.

  • SeniorBalloon
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It is plain to any thermometer observer that temps have been rising. What is not so plain is the connection to human activitites. Models used to predict future warming are absolutely affected by human actions. There are many variables used in these models which are influenced by the bias of the scientist. Where is the objective proof that the current warming trend is being caused by human actions?

    I think we should act prudently and protect our environment, but I am bothered by the scare tactics used by the global warming advocates as they are often based on these rather felxible models whose outcome can be greatly affected by the human variable.

    I think in the end such tactics will undermine there cause. If the seas don't rise and flood seattle no one will believe what they have to say. And that is a grave danger.

    jb

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "There are many variables used in these models which are influenced by the bias of the scientist"

    Whom better to trust JB - the biased scientist who sees first hand the influence of politics? or the biased politician who knows little about the science?

    "If the seas don't rise and flood seattle no one will believe what they have to say"

    Might be a bit too late to believe the scientists by then don't ya think? ;o) vgkg

  • AzDesertRat
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    John McCain, our senator, isn't too happy with the Bush administation with its stance on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions. From today's New York Times


    Election Over, McCain Criticizes Bush on Climate Change
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN

    Wasting no time distancing himself from President Bush on an issue that has long divided them, Senator John McCain yesterday called the White House stance on climate change "terribly disappointing" and said inaction in the face of mounting scientific data was unjustified.

    Two weeks after the end of a campaign in which he stumped for Mr. Bush's re-election, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is convening a Senate hearing today on the human effect on climate and what to do about it.

    Mr. Bush, citing the cost to the economy and what the administration describes as the uncertainty of the science, has opposed restrictions on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases since early 2001, when he abandoned a pledge he made in his first presidential campaign to restrict carbon dioxide from power plants.

    In contrast, for three years Mr. McCain has pushed for a bill he wrote with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, that would create the first, modest curbs on greenhouse gases.

    "This is a very time-sensitive issue," he said in an interview yesterday.

    Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said that Mr. Bush saw climate change as a serious issue but that he favored using voluntary means to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, as "a first step in an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change."

    The focus of today's hearing, the last of Mr. McCain's six-year tenure as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, will be rapid warming in the Arctic, the subject of a recent report by a panel of nearly 300 scientists. The report, commissioned by eight nations with Arctic territory, including the United States, found that rising temperatures had already eroded glaciers, sea ice and permafrost and could lead to vast changes in the region's environment and in global sea levels by the end of the 21st century.

    The hearing is the latest of more than a dozen on human-caused global warming that Mr. McCain has convened during his chairmanship of the committee. The new chairman is expected to be Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who has voted against Mr. McCain's bill but has often said that the warming climate poses a severe challenge to his state and particularly to indigenous Arctic cultures.

    The hearings have been organized in part to build a case for the McCain-Lieberman bill, called the Climate Stewardship Act.

    ......

  • AzDesertRat
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    All right everybody, time for a little comedy in time for the holidays. From the Onion..

    Enjoy

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks for the tip Az. I'll pick up a copy to avoid downloading all of the pdf's. The headlines look as if the additional text will be up to The Onion's usual high standards.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Hot" off the presses:

    Gretchen Cook-Anderson/Don Savage
    Headquarters, Washington Dec. 1, 2004
    (Phone: 202/358-0836/1727)

    MEDIA ADVISORY: M04-192

    NASA STUDY FINDS GLACIER DOING DOUBLE TIME

    A NASA-funded study found the world's fastest glacier,
    Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae, doubled its speed of ice flow
    between 1997 and 2003. The study provides key evidence of
    newly discovered relationships between ice sheets, sea level
    rise and climate warming. The study appears in this week's
    issue of the journal Nature.

    Jakobshavn Isbrae is Greenland's largest outlet glacier,
    draining 6.5 percent of Greenland's ice sheet area. The
    stream's near-doubling of ice flow from land into the ocean
    is important, because this one glacier has increased the rate
    of sea level rise by approximately four percent of the 20th
    century rate of increase.

    The study used data from satellites and airborne lasers to
    derive ice movements. Synthetic aperture radar from Canada's
    RADARSAT and the European Space Agency's European Remote
    Sensing Satellites' data was used to measure the glacier's
    velocity. Researchers tracked distinct features in NASA
    Landsat satellite image pairs to determine velocities.
    "Other glaciers have thinned by over a meter a year, which we
    believe is too much to be attributed to melting alone," said
    Waleed Abdalati, a senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space
    Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and co-author of the study.
    "We think there is a dynamic effect in which the glaciers are
    accelerating due to warming. This investigation furthers our
    understanding of ice-climate interactions of planetary
    systems."
    For more information and images about this study on the
    Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.ht
    ml

    For information about NASA and agency programs on the Web,
    visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-

    * * *

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Some of the Antarctica glaciers are also reported to be speeding up too. Makes sense: warmer ice, more melt water as lubricant, higher plasticity of basal ice.

  • gardengardengardenga
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    my children and I are homeschooling and we found this site in regards to global warming. The site is from a 2003 senate decision, I found it interesting how (senators)states voted on the global warming issues.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I've been following a debate among scientists about global warming and the impact of human activities on same. An important paper summarizing peer-reviewed science on the matter came up with a consensus on likely anthropogenic forcing of climate change. The anti-folks came back with a variety of counter arguments but basically conceded that concensus exists on the science but not on policy and political response. To give you a bit of flavor, this scienctic writer posted this blog entry:

    --------------------------

    Wednesday, December 08, 2004

    Conceding the Science
    Well, we now have Tech Central Station's real--not fake--response to the Naomi Oreskes paper on climate science consensus (i.e., it's monolithic). Roy Spencer, the author, basically fails to disagree with Oreskes' point. He argues back that, yeah, there's a consensus that humans are causing warming, but no consensus that it's a problem, dangerous, alarming, etc. In other words, Spencer admits a scientific consensus in favor of human causation but will not admit to a policy consensus in favor of alarmism.
    I have to say, with arguments like this, the contrarians are bound to lose the debate. Whether we should be "alarmed" is a matter of judgment, but the highest projection of possible warming by 2100 is 5.8 degrees Celsius [http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf]. It's up to you to decide whether that's worth worrying about--but I think most people will hardly consider it business as usual.
    Posted by Chris Mooney at 6:26 PM Easter------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Naomi Oreskes paper (in Science) on climate science consensus concludes"

    "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change."

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

    --------------------------

    For those interested in Prof. Spencer's response to the Science editorial, see the hyperlink.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Recent Greenhouse Gas info....

    Gretchen Cook-Anderson
    Headquarters, Washington Dec. 13, 2004
    (Phone: 202/358-0836)

    John Bluck
    Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
    (Phone: 650/604-5026/)

    RELEASE: 04-395

    NASA SCIENTISTS LINK GREENHOUSE GASES TO INSECTS AND TREES

    Insect control and tree planting could greatly affect
    Earth's greenhouse gases, according to NASA scientists.
    Greenhouse gasses are in Earth's atmosphere and warm the
    planet.

    The scientists presented their findings today during the fall
    meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
    Their research showed how human control of insects, tree
    planting and other factors could affect Earth's greenhouse
    gases.

    "Planting trees on marginal agricultural lands could
    sequester carbon and offset at least one-fifth of the annual
    fossil fuel emission of carbon in the United States," said
    Christopher Potter, a scientist at NASA's Ames Research
    Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "Scientists also have found
    outbreaks of plant-eating insects may be linked with periodic
    droughts and heat waves in North America, which can trigger
    large seasonal losses of carbon dioxide back to the
    atmosphere." Potter added.

    The scientists report a Moderate Resolution Imaging
    Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite-driven computer model
    that predicts forest re-growth conservatively projects, 0.3
    billion metric tons of carbon could be stored annually in
    trees growing on relatively low-production crop or rangeland
    areas in the United States.

    A second study involved large-scale disturbances to
    greenhouse gases detected using global satellite data. "A
    historical picture is emerging of periodic droughts and heat
    waves, possibly coupled with herbivorous insect outbreaks, as
    among the most important causes of ecosystem disturbances in
    North America," Potter said.

    The findings about tree planting and insect control were the
    subjects of two peer-reviewed technical papers Potter co- authored. Other co-authors of the paper related to tree
    planting included Matthew Fladeland, also from Ames; Steven
    Klooster, Vanessa Genovese and Marc Kramer, from California
    State University, Monterey Bay, Calif.

    Potter's co-authors for the second study were Pang-Ning Tan,
    Michigan State University, East Lansing; Vipin Kumar,
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; and Klooster.

    For information about the research on the Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/climate_bugs.htm
    l

    For information about NASA and agency programs on the
    Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-

    * * *

  • AzDesertRat
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Now we have the Eskimoes involved. From the New York Times,

    December 15, 2004
    Eskimos Seek to Recast Global Warming as a Rights Issue
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN

    The Eskimos, or Inuit, about 155,000 seal-hunting peoples scattered around the Arctic, plan to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the United States, by contributing substantially to global warming, is threatening their existence.

    The Inuit plan is part of a broader shift in the debate over human-caused climate change evident among participants in the 10th round of international talks taking place in Buenos Aires aimed at averting dangerous human interference with the climate system.

    Inuit leaders said they planned to announce the effort at the climate meeting today.

    Representatives of poor countries and communities - from the Arctic fringes to the atolls of the tropics to the flanks of the Himalayas - say they are imperiled by rising temperatures and seas through no fault of their own. They are casting the issue as no longer simply an environmental problem but as an assault on their basic human rights.

    The commission, an investigative arm of the Organization of American States, has no enforcement powers. But a declaration that the United States has violated the Inuit's rights could create the foundation for an eventual lawsuit, either against the United States in an international court or against American companies in federal court, said a number of legal experts, including some aligned with industry.

    Such a petition could have decent prospects now that industrial countries, including the United States, have concluded in recent reports and studies that warming linked to heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions is contributing to big environmental changes in the Arctic, a number of experts said.

    Last month, an assessment of Arctic climate change by 300 scientists for the eight countries with Arctic territory, including the United States, concluded that "human influences" are now the dominant factor.

    ---- rest of article

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Another eye on things :

    Gretchen Cook-Anderson
    Headquarters, Washington Dec. 14, 2004
    (Phone: 202/358-0836)

    Lynn Chandler
    NASA AGU Press Room
    (Phone: 415/348-4440)

    RELEASE: 04-391

    NASA'S AURA SATELLITE SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON AIR QUALITY AND
    OZONE HOLE

    NASA scientists announced the agency's Aura spacecraft
    is providing the first daily, direct global measurements of
    low-level ozone and many other pollutants affecting air
    quality.

    For the first time, Aura will help scientists monitor global
    pollution production and transport with unprecedented spatial
    resolution. Aura's measurements offer new insights into how
    climate changes influence the recovery of the Earth's
    protective stratospheric ozone layer.

    "Data from NASA missions like Aura are a valuable national
    asset," said Aura Program Scientist Phil DeCola of NASA
    Headquarters, Washington. "Clean air is a vital need, and air
    quality is not merely a local issue. Pollutants do not
    respect state or national boundaries. They can degrade air
    quality far from their sources. Aura's view from space
    enables us to understand the long-range transport of
    pollutants," he added.

    "Aura's early results are nothing short of astounding;
    measurements like these will help us better understand how
    the ozone hole will react to future stratospheric cooling,
    which is expected as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise,"
    said Aura Project Scientist Mark Schoeberl of NASA's Goddard
    Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

    Aura's instruments study tropospheric chemistry and will
    provide daily, global monitoring of air pollution. The
    complexity of pollution transport makes it difficult to
    quantify how much industry and cars contribute to poor local
    air quality. Also, the presence of stratospheric ozone
    sandwiched between the satellite and the troposphere makes
    seeing tropospheric ozone very difficult. Aura's Tropospheric
    Emission Spectrometer (TES) uses new technology to see
    through the stratospheric ozone layer, to measure
    tropospheric ozone.

    Aura also provides new insights into the physical and
    chemical processes that influence the health of the
    stratospheric ozone layer and climate. It's producing the
    most complete suite of chemical measurements ever available
    to understand the ozone layer and its recovery.

    Data will include the first measurements of chemically
    reactive hydrogen-containing species involved in ozone
    destruction. The satellite also will provide the first
    simultaneous measurements of key forms of chlorine and
    bromine, also important for ozone destruction. Aura measures
    the upper-tropospheric water-vapor abundance, a key component
    in the radiation budget, needed to understand climate change.

    Launched July 15, 2004, Aura is the third and final major
    Earth Observing System satellite. Aura's view of the
    atmosphere and its chemistry will complement the global data
    already being collected by NASA's other Earth Observing
    System satellites. These projects are Terra, primarily
    focused on land, and Aqua, which comprehensively observes
    Earth's water cycle. Collectively, these satellites allow
    scientists to study the complexities of how land, water and
    our atmosphere work as a system.

    Aura carries four instruments: Ozone Monitoring Instrument
    (OMI), Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), High Resolution Dynamics
    Limb Sounder (HIRDLS) and the Tropospheric Emission
    Spectrometer (TES). OMI was built by the Netherlands and
    Finland in collaboration with NASA. HIRDLS was built by the
    United Kingdom and the United States.

    The information was released during the American Geophysical
    Union Fall meeting in San Francisco.

    For information related to this story on the Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/aura_first.ht
    ml

    For information about NASA and agency programs on the
    Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Semi-related to GW issue...

    Gretchen Cook-Anderson
    Headquarters, Washington Dec. 15, 2004
    (Phone: 202-358-0836)

    John Bluck
    Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
    (Phone: 650/604-5026/9000)

    RELEASE: 04-397

    NASA SCIENTISTS DISCUSS GIANT ATMOSPHERIC BROWN CLOUD

    NASA scientists announced a giant, smoggy atmospheric
    brown cloud, which forms over South Asia and the Indian
    Ocean, has intercontinental reach. The scientists presented
    their findings today during the American Geophysical Union
    Fall meeting in San Francisco.

    The scientists discussed the massive cloud's sources, global
    movement and its implications. The brown cloud is a moving,
    persistent air mass characterized by a mixed-particle haze.
    It also contains other pollution, such as ozone.

    "Ozone is a triple-threat player in the global environment.
    There are three very different ways ozone affects our lives,"
    said Robert Chatfield, a scientist at NASA's Ames Research
    Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "A protective layer of good
    ozone, high in the atmosphere, shields us from deadly
    ultraviolet light that comes from the sun. Second, bad or
    smog ozone near the surface of Earth can burn our lungs and
    damage crops. In our study, we are looking at a third major
    effect of ozone, that it can warm the planet, because it is a
    powerful greenhouse gas," Chatfield said.

    "We found both brown cloud pollution and natural processes
    can contribute to unhealthy levels of ozone in the
    troposphere where we live and breathe. Some ozone from the
    brown cloud rises to high enough altitudes to spread over the
    global atmosphere," Chatfield explained. Ozone from the
    Earth's protective stratospheric layer, produced by natural
    processes, can migrate down to contribute to concentrations
    in the lower atmosphere, according to the scientists.

    The researchers studied the intercontinental smog ozone
    processes associated with the brown cloud over South Asia.
    They used a NASA technique that combines data acquired by
    satellites with ozone data measured by instruments on special
    weather balloons.

    The ozone-monitoring instrument on NASA's Aura satellite is
    providing data about the brown cloud. "The beautiful, high- detail images from this instrument promise to help us sort
    out our major questions about how much of the tropospheric
    ozone is from pollution and how much is from natural
    factors," Chatfield said.

    Analysis shows ozone in the lower atmosphere over the Indian
    Ocean comes from the intensely developed industrial- agricultural areas in the region. The southern pollutant
    buildup has long-range effects, often traveling across
    Africa, further than the brown cloud of particles, according
    to researchers.

    To access technical information about the brown cloud study
    on the Web, visit:

    http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/chatfield/recentRes.html

    For information and images related to this story on the Web,
    visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html

    For information about NASA and agency programs on the
    Internet, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-

    * * *

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    More from NASA...

    Gretchen Cook-Anderson/Don Savage
    Headquarters, Washington Dec. 16, 2004
    (Phone: 202/358-0836/1727)

    RELEASE: 04-394

    NASA STUDY FINDS TINY PARTICLES IN AIR MAY INFLUENCE CARBON SINKS

    A NASA-funded study provides direct measurements confirming
    aerosols, tiny particles in the atmosphere, may be changing how much
    carbon plants and ecosystems absorb from or release to the air.

    The research is important for understanding climate change and the
    various factors that influence how much carbon gets transferred from
    the air into below ground carbon sinks. Carbon dioxide acts as a heat- trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The study appeared in a
    recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

    The study reported the effects of aerosols on overall carbon exchange
    might be more significant than clouds. Cloud cover tended to reflect
    the sun's radiation back out to space, reducing the overall amount of
    light to Earth's surface. As a result, less sunlight on plants caused
    less photosynthesis.

    The study, which benefited from NASA satellite data, focused on six
    sites around the country. The sites represented a wide variety of
    landscapes, including forests, crops, and grassland. When aerosol
    levels were high, the amount of carbon absorbed by an ecosystem
    increased for forest and croplands, and it decreased for grasslands.

    Lead author Dev Niyogi, a research assistant professor at North
    Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., and colleagues, suggested the
    effect of aerosols on the overall exchange of carbon dioxide by
    ecosystems may be greater than the effects of clouds on these
    processes.

    "We were very excited to find direct observational evidence that one
    variable, the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, can have such a
    significant effect on something so complex as an ecosystem's carbon
    exchange," Niyogi said.

    The researchers used data from NASA's AERONET (AErosol RObotic NETwork)
    and the AmeriFlux network. AERONET provided data on the amount of
    aerosols in the air. From AmeriFlux, Niyogi and colleagues were able to
    measure the exchange of carbon dioxide between the air and an
    ecosystem.

    But aerosols did not dramatically cut the amount of radiation that
    reached Earth's surface. Instead, aerosols scattered sunlight allowing
    more radiation to penetrate to the lower layers of leaves. This less
    concentrated radiation due to aerosols allowed for more leaves to
    photosynthesize at a higher rate. During photosynthesis, plants absorb
    carbon from the air.

    In grasslands the top layers of leaves are not as dense as with crops
    and forests, causing the ground to heat more. When the ground heats,
    the soil gives more off carbon dioxide, thus reducing the net effect.

    The study also benefited from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
    Spectroradiometer (MODIS) in NASA's Terra satellite. It was used at
    regular intervals to provide broader geophysical context to the more
    continuous data available from AERONET. MODIS data were also used to
    assess the vegetation health and map leaf area for each site, and to
    interpret the net ecosystem exchange.
    For each site, the researchers analyzed how carbon cycled in each
    ecosystem on cloudy and cloud-free days. They examined carbon exchange
    levels for high and low levels of scattered sunlight as well as high
    and low levels of aerosols. Measurements were taken during afternoons
    in the peak growing season from June through August. Years of available
    data varied for each site.

    AERONET is a ground-based aerosol-monitoring network and data archive.
    It was initiated and supported by NASA's Earth Observing System. It was
    expanded into a consortium with many non-NASA institutions. NASA
    provides equipment and standardization to institutions that participate
    in the program. Data from AERONET provides near real-time observations
    of aerosols. AmeriFlux is a multi-institutional network supported by
    several federal agencies that provides ongoing data of ecosystem level
    exchanges of carbon dioxide, water, energy and other factors from daily
    to yearly time scales.
    For more information and images about this release on the Internet,
    visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/aerosol_carbon.html

    For information about NASA and agency programs on the Web, visit:

    http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-


    * * *

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Have methane burps been discussed on this forum yet? If not ...

    Published on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 by the Baltimore Sun Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson The Arctic Council's recent report on the effects of global warming in the far north paints a grim picture: global floods, extinction of polar bears and other marine mammals, collapsed fisheries. But it ignored a ticking time bomb buried in the Arctic tundra. There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice\-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra \- enough to start this chain reaction \- and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about. An apocalyptic fantasy concocted by hysterical environmentalists? Unfortunately, no. Strong geologic evidence suggests something similar has happened at least twice before.
  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    We have discussed Methyl hydrates and other related items, mostly in reference to deep-sea energy sources but also as "environmental threats." While the potential threat is there, the chances seem pretty slim if the scenario has been recorded only twice before in geologic time. There would also be countering processes, perhaps, working towards increased cloudiness and higher albedos, for example.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here's a little more data on these interesting formations....it almost sounds like something that's expected to be found on Titan or other frozen moons. Hopefully our earth bound sources will be "harvestable" sometime in the near future.


    Methane Hydrate is stable* on land in polar regions and at sea in water deeper than a few hundred meters, and likely exists on all continental margins. The triangles here show actual discoveries (updated from Kvenvolden, 1988).

    *this map & description probably pre-dates your article Althea

    Historical Perspective

    1810
    Sir Humphrey Davy discovers chlorine hydrate.
    1888
    Villard measured hydrates of CH4, C2H6, C2H4, C2H2, and N2O.
    1930's
    Hammerschmidt determines hydrates are blocking gas lines, and investigates inhibitor gasses.
    1940's
    Soviets hypothesize the existence of natural methane hydrates in cold northern climates.
    1960's
    Molecular structure of hydrate is determined ("clathratus ~ to encage). Soviets recognize methane hydrate as a possible energy source, discover and produce the first major hydrate deposit in permafrost.
    1970's
    A bottom simulating reflector is drilled and is found to be associated with the base of hydrate stability.
    1990's
    Initial characterization and quantification of methane hydrate deposits in deep water.
    2000
    Efforts to quantify location and abundance of hydrates begin. Large-scale efforts to exploit hydrates as fuel begin.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here are some photos demonstrating the retreat of alpine glaciers over the past 100 years in Alaska. Also noted in the accompanying article is the reestablishment of trees and other growth over the same period.

  • althea_gw
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    When I read the article I considered the possibility of methane hydrate as a potential fuel source. The idea seemed too farfetched to state publically. Thanks for the map with a bit of history vgkg.

    Those photos are startling, esp. the former 2000 foot-thick glacier. On the rapid change of species in areas formerly occupied by glaciers, this article from a month ago discusses problems the native people have with describing what is happening.

  • wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I couldn't tell the real difference..........the shots were not exactly the same.

  • anneow
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Amazing pictures...no, shocking. Retreating glaciers in South America may dry up the water source for whole cities. There are those who will never be convinced, no matter how clear the evidence. Anne (who occasionally lurks here).

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Most of the shots were very close to the same. Perspectives change when 2000-foot thick glaciers have disappeared and marine waters have occupied hundreds of feet of terrain scoured out by the former glacial mass. Add trees and other vegetation... Important to focus on skylines first to get the true bearings.

    I spent part of a year working part-time for the National Geographical Society in its glaciology division. The Society has (had?) the greatest photo collection of alpine and piedmont glaciers, particularly NW North America. I collated just such photographs to track the advance and retreats of Alaskan and Canadian glaciers; and there were hundreds of glaciers and thousands of photos. The ebb and flow of such glaciers has been keenly studied for a long time.

    What I recalled best was most glaciers have been in retreat off and on for the past century (from my datum of around 1960). When glaciers were advancing, there often was a corresponding thinning of the ice caps feeding the alpine and piedmont systems, meaning possible ice loss was being masked by accelerated ice flow at the terminus. Ice there could not melt as fast as ice flowed. The ice cap above Juneau was one such system. At one time after WWII the Mendenhall Glacier advanced into settlements at sea level while elsewhere in nearby fjords (e.g. Cook's), ice was in rapid retreat.

    On other web sites I've seen photos of areas now free of ice and even occupied by settlement, areas I last saw photos of glaciers taken in the 1940s and 1950s.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Wayne, check out these two shots, it's better to view them side-by-side rather than flipping pages...

    {{gwi:1372437}}

    {{gwi:1372439}}

    Also, ya'll may have already heard the latest hot newz...

    2004 Among the Hottest Years on Record
    By Kevin Gray
    Associated Press
    posted: 16 December, 2004
    11:00 a.m. ET
    BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- The year 2004, punctuated by four powerful hurricanes in the Caribbean and deadly typhoons lashing Asia, was the fourth-hottest on record, extending a trend since 1990 that has registered the 10 warmest years, a U.N. weather agency said Wednesday.

    The current year was also the most expensive for the insurance industry in coping worldwide with hurricanes, typhoons and other weather-related natural disasters, according to new figures released by U.N. environmental officials.

    The release of the report by the World Meteorological Organization came as environmental ministers from some 80 countries gathered in Buenos Aires for a United Nations conference on climate change, looking at ways to cut down on greenhouse gases that some say contribute heavily to Earth's warming.

    Scientists say a sustained increase in temperature change is likely to continue disrupting the global climate, increasing the intensity of storms, potentially drying up farmlands and raising ocean levels, among other things.

    Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization secretary-general, said the warming and increased storm activity could not be attributed to any particular cause, but was part of a global warming trend that was likely to continue.

    Scientists have reported that temperatures across the globe rose an average of 1 degree over the past century with the rate of change since 1976 at roughly three times that over the past 100 years.

    The World Meteorological Organization said it expects Earth's average surface temperature to rise 0.8 degrees above the normal 57 degrees Fahrenheit in 2004, adding this year to a recent pattern that included the four warmest years on record, with the hottest being 1998.

    The month of October also registered as the warmest October since accurate readings began in 1861, said the agency, which is responsible for assembling data from meteorologists and climatologists worldwide.

    During the summer, heat waves in southern Europe pushed temperatures to near-record highs in southern Spain, Portugal and Romania, where thermostats peaked at 104 degrees while the rest of Europe sweltered through above-average temperatures.

    The extreme weather of 2004 extended to storms.

    The Caribbean had four hurricanes that reached Category 4 or 5 status - those capable of causing extreme and catastrophic damage. It was only the fourth time in recent history that so many were recorded. The hurricanes of 2004 caused more than $43 billion in damages in the Caribbean and the United States.

    The worst damage was on Haiti, where as many as 1,900 people died from flooding and mudslides caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne in September.

    Japan and the Philippines also saw increased extreme tropical weather, with deadly typhoons lashing both islands. Japan registered a record number of typhoons making landfall this year with 10, while back-to-back storms in the Philippines killed at least 740 people in the wettest year for the globe since 2000, the U.N. agency said.

    Statistics released at the climate change conference showed that natural disasters across the world in the first 10 months of the year cost the insurance industry just over $35 billion, up from $16 billion in 2003.

    Munich Re, one of the world's biggest insurance companies, said the United States tallied the highest losses at more than $26 billion, while small developing nations such as the Caribbean islands of Grenada and Grand Cayman were also hit hard.

    Other parts of the world also witnessed extreme weather, with droughts occurring in the western United States, parts of Africa, Afghanistan, Australia and India. Jarraud, of the U.N. weather agency, said the droughts were part of what appears to be a surge over the last decade.

    The prolonged rising temperatures and deadly storms were matched by harsh winters in other regions.

    Peru, Chile, and southern Argentina were all hit with severe cold and snow during June and July.

    Jarraud said the high temperatures like those seen in parts of Europe this year were expected to inch up in the coming years.

    Citing recent studies by European climatologists, Jarraud said heat waves in Europe "could over the next 50 years become four or five times as frequent as they are now."

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here is Dave Appell's blog comments on the recent climate summit in Argentina.

    ----------------------------------------------

    A NY Times article on the wrap-up of the COP-10 meetings in Buenos Aires. You don't really need to read it -- it's enough to know that the U.S. is being obstructionist at every possible turn.

    Notice how the goalposts keep moving. At one time the contrarians doubted that the world was warming. When that was established beyond all doubt, they then doubted that it was due to manmade activities. Now that that is established (IPCC TAR, 2001), the question Paula Dobriansky now wants answered is "Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided." Now they're saying the despite science's being unable to answer a nonscientific question (gee, who would have thought), there's nothing we can do.

  • wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Vgkg, Thanks for the more definitive set of pictures.

    Even though some areas have had hot summers, like Europe for a couple of years, it has been cooler where I am......so much so in July for a while that it was downright chilly! Of course that doesn't change the over-all picture, but it does make you wonder a little.

  • spewey
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    While many Alaska glaciers are retreating, some are in fact advancing. The Hubbard Glacier has twice sealed off Russell Fjord in recent years, and the Harvard Glacier is advancing into College Fjord. Still, of Alaska's 700 major named glaciers, fewer than 20 are advancing.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The Juneau icecap is thinning and feeding some glaciers at more rapid rates.

    Wayne, don't confuse weather with climate. The factors affecting weather patterns are dynamic/fluid. Also as climates warm, there are more energy tensions established the line of convergence of warmer moist air masses and the cooler drier air masses. Thus we experience locally excessively heavy rains, high-category hurricanes and typhoons, and severe tornado-spawning squall lines. At the same time, adjacent regions might be experiencing 100-year droughts.

  • Major_in_WA
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    While I think there may be global warming and have been following this thread for some time I dont know if all sides have been covered. I live among several active volcanos and they add greenhouse gasses and particulate matter to the atmosphere on a very grand scale and I see little or no mention of that here. From what I have read, we are in a period that is the most active in over 500 years. Volcanism puts more pollutants into the air than man does. Now dont get me wrong, I think we contribute just not to the extent some think we do.

    There, thats my 2 cents.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Be advised that the net effect of active vulcanism is to reduce global temperatures as measured during major volcanic eruptions in recent centuries mainly due to ash in the atmosphere. Yes, volcanic gases are rich in co2 and other GHG's but over climatological time (not weather time), these emission have been pretty constant.

    I thought that this was not a particularly active era of volcanic activity? See the hyperlink for statistical survey.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Surprising Side Effects of Global Warming
    By Robert Roy Britt
    LiveScience Senior Writer
    posted: 22 December, 2004
    7:00 a.m. ET
    SAN FRANCISCO - Rising seas, melting polar ice caps and strange weather tend to grab headlines as Earth's climate grows warmer. But there are other dramatic outcomes that scientists are only beginning to grasp and which could damage structures in northern areas, reconfigure towering mountains and alter biology.

    As winters get milder, changes occur underfoot and go largely unnoticed until critical thresholds are reached. Railroad tracks are deformed. Rocky peaks crack apart and spill into ravines. Whole mountainsides lose footing, creating flows of ice and mud that move as fast as a BMW on the Autobahn.

    Some 24 percent of land area in the Northern Hemisphere is underlain by perennially frozen ground. Scientists call this permafrost. Another 57 percent -- extending down into much of the United States and Europe -- freezes seasonally.

    But these numbers are changing rapidly, scientists reported here last week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union....

    Whole story below...

  • socal23
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nothotsuga,

    Columbia research reveals that Gulf Stream is not responsible for mild winters in Europe

    This is ludicrous.
    First there is not only one cause to explain the differences in climate. It is obvious that a warm ocean will warm the air above it, and limit the cooling in Winter.
    Second if one will only look at an European map with the January isotherms, he will understand that the Oceanic current is indeed playing a key role in the European climate. Otherwise how will one explain that the January mean temperatures are the same in Bergen 60N and Lyon 46N? And with minimal average temperatures lower in Lyon than in Bergen?

    Thats easy; Bergen is at sea level, on the coast. Lyon is at >600feet elevation, 500km from the north or west coasts, in a cold air basin, in the middle of the French Alps. Additionally, sea surface temperatures are actually much higher at Lyon's latitude than at Bergen's. The article acknowledges the role that proximity to a large body of water that isn't frozen will have on climate.

    There are of course other factors as well. Western North America has a coastline that runs from northwest to southeast all the way from the arctic circle. At similar latitudes in western Europe the coastline runs from northeast to southwest. Since weather systems move from west to east in temperate latitudes, of course Europe is going to be warmer. Arctic air traveling over water will be significantly modified, the same air moving over land will gain little heat.

    Ryan

  • sylviaZ9b
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Could we, just for a moment take a break from hard science and discuss global warming in slightly more general, philosophical terms? I have seen carrying capacity referred to in this forum as an outdated concept, but I do not see how such a logical concept could be dismissed out-of-hand. There is only a limited amount of resources available and there is a limit to the amount of usage & waste that any given ecosystem can absorb. I have seen the activities of uninformed (or perhaps uncaring) people denounced as something close to paganism, or worse. Yet, humans are a natural creature, nothing more and certainly nothing less. Less education means more instinctual behaviour, even more natural. Perhaps I am confused as to what the management of global warming is supposed to accomplish, because to me it seems like nothing more than a postponement of the inevitable. I believe in stepping lightly upon the earth because I love the earth for it's own sake, not because I want to save my own skin. I also believe that it is pure arrogance to think that we can escape the natural cycles of the earth. Can't stop what's coming, can't stop what's on it's way...

    I am used to being ripped to shreds in this forum, so don't hold back. All I ask is that you abstain from the crutch of scientific facts and figures - Anyone up for a little pure dialectic?

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Ain't got nuthing to say. What's "a little pure dialectic"?

    There is science and there is policy/human reaction to ?what?. To science? To Nature? Nature and science couldn't care less. Global warming isn't much of a problem for the earth. The biosphere will adjust as it always has to slow or catastrophic changes.

    Even ignorant or uneducated humans are deeply acculturated and hardly natural in either actions or reactions. That is why multiculturalism is such a threat to some...too much disagreement on what is the "right and wrong" ways to think or behave.

    Finally, there is no "management of global warming." Especially if we exclude science as a relatively objective arbiter of what it is and how does it work and how great will be the changes over what range of time. There is only management of human activities, some elements of which would address the anthropogenic contributions to global warming and other elements, the changes required to adjust to global warming's effects on population, economics, and perhaps environmental issues.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Study Clouds Link Between Pollution and Rain
    By Robin Lloyd
    Special to LiveScience
    posted: 23 December, 2004
    7:00 a.m. ET
    A team of scientists has looked at clouds from both sides now and found more bad news about air pollution and global warming.

    For the past decade, some scientists have thought that small air-polluting particles produced by the burning of fossil fuels and then sucked into clouds acted as seeds for new cloud particles, plumping up polluted clouds with numerous and smaller cloud particles. Smaller cloud droplets are less efficient at producing rain, and the thinking was that less precipitation would yield thick balls of clouds that reflect more sunlight away from Earth.

    The cooling effect was thought to be strong enough to cancel the contribution of atmospheric warming from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas produced by human consumption of fossil fuels, along with methane, nitrous oxide, and other carbon gases.

    Ship tracks, the long lines of clouds downwind of ships, provided a nice opportunity to study the effect of exhaust particles, called aerosols, on clouds. However, pesky data turned up.

    Sometimes scientists measured more water and thicker clouds in the ship tracks. More often, less water was measured in the tracks, just the opposite of what was expected.

    The new study involved creating a detailed three-dimensional model for the interaction of air pollution with clouds and found that the mitigating effect of pollution only works when the air above clouds is humid. The model was tested against real data from the field and found to be very realistic.

    "Our findings indeed indicate that aerosol pollution will not save us from greenhouse warming to the extent that has been widely thought by the general climate community," said Andrew Ackerman of NASA's Ames Research Center. A research paper on the results by Ackerman and colleagues at the University of Tasmania, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of Colorado, Boulder, was published in the Dec. 23 issue of the journal Nature.

    The teams approach involved a model with 45 ingredients or variables at each of a half million grid points to represent a cloud space spanning four square miles and one mile thick, solved to predict the interactions of water droplets in clouds. The approach was so complex that mathematical solutions required three days of running simulations divided into smaller pieces simultaneously on 32 computers at once, a process known as cluster computing or parallel processing.

    A big surprise came when the model, in one case, cranked out a relatively dry cloud despite an increase in aerosols, or air pollution. No precipitation was falling from the cloud, as well. Thats when the team noticed that the air above the clouds in this strange case was much drier than in the other meteorological cases.

    "We hypothesized that the dry air above the boundary layer was reducing the precipitation, and thus leading to the unexpected behavior," Ackerman told LiveScience.

    Sure enough, by drying out air above the simulated cloud layer, the team was able to reverse the response of cloud water to pollution in their models. The dry air resulted in less drizzle from the cloud and more rapid drying as it sucked in more air from above.

    Ackerman and his team also learned something about "non-precipitating clouds." It can be misleading when studying the effects of pollution on clouds to ignore small amounts of precipitation locked in clouds that do not rain. Actually, the movement of cloud droplets slowly falling within clouds can be the subtle driver of the process that results in relatively dried out, polluted clouds that are less effective at offsetting global warming.

  • wayne_5 zone 6a Central Indiana
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sylvia says,"All I ask is that you abstain from the crutch of scientific facts and figures - Anyone up for a little pure dialectic?"

    Yes, I believe that all things were made for His good pleasure........both the good and evil work to His purpose. What is determined cannot be stopped. I just want to be in His good graces and pleasure!! So much could be said in this vein and anything that ignores it is..................

  • sylviaZ9b
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you, Wayne. And I concur. But that isn't exactly what I was getting at.

    Marshall, Acculturation is no defense against the "man's activities are a part of nature's cycles" argument. Honeybees and wolves have very strict boundries on what behaviour is acceptable within their groups, which counts as crude culture. Our activities may be more sophisticated, but sophistication does not make us unnatural.

    Good point about "management of global warming" vs "management of human activities." It does require acceptance of the reality of global warming, as well as man's contribution to the problem, but who can argue with the practicality of planning for climatic changes that may have an extreme effect on large numbers of people. The alternative would be chaos.

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sylvia, I really am not competent to debate "nature-nuture" matters except perhaps to point out that humans are one of the few species to have full consciousness, record history, pass old and new knowledge onto to the next generation, generate exotic technologies, and plan (or choose not to plan) for possible futures far ahead of its own lifespan. Bringing up bees or wolves is irrelevent.

  • saccharum
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sylvia: I also believe that it is pure arrogance to think that we can escape the natural cycles of the earth. Can't stop what's coming, can't stop what's on it's way...

    So, do you believe that it is impossible for humans to affect the global environment in a way that ultimately is harmful to us, or that it is impossible for us to change the behavior that has that effect?

    Sounds like an essay by Rush Limbaugh that I read a while ago...

  • marshallz10
    Original Author
    19 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I might as well finish off this thread with a promise to continue a new one. Let's not bring in as experts on problems of global climate political pundits or radio personalities.

Sponsored
Dream Design Construction LLC
Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars4 Reviews
Loudoun County's Innovative Design-Build Firms