CLIMATE changelog » Dialog » Climate Collapse
http://chem11.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&thread=269

---

Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 16, 2005, 9:50am

Climate Change Wreaking Havoc With Seasons
By Matthew Beard
The Independent - UK
4-15-5


Climate change is playing havoc with the timing of the seasons and could drastically alter the landscape, according to one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.

Frogs have begun spawning in Britain as early as October, oaks are coming into leaf three weeks earlier than they were 50 years ago and there were an unprecedented 4,000 sightings of bumblebees by the end of January this year.

Scientists, who also noted that people were mowing their lawns earlier, have concluded that spring now arrives ahead of schedule.

The findings were submitted to scientists at the UK Phenology Network by hundreds of paid observers across the country and have been combined with environmental data over three centuries. The study is bound to intensify calls for tighter controls on environmental pollution linked to climate change.

The report, published yesterday in the BBC Wildlife Magazine, provides startling evidence of how nature is reacting to rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. Authors of the report have calculated that spring starts around six days earlier for every 1C temperature rise but not all species are affected in the same way.

For example for every 1C temperature rise, oak trees come into leaf 10 days earlier compared to four days earlier for the ash, its main competitor for space.

In an example of the ecological balance being upset, these changes also affect caterpillars, which are developing earlier to meet the need to feed on the trees' young leaves. This may also have an effect on the migratory patterns of birds that feed on the insects, which can more readily adapt to climate change.

"The findings suggest that there won't be a smooth progression towards a warmer climate, with all species advancing in unison, but rather that different responses may disrupt the complex linkages in nature," said Tim Sparks, one of the report's authors.

The authors predict more drastic changes if, as expected, global temperatures rise between 2C and 6C.

It is now warmer than at any point in the past 1,000 years and nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred in the past decade.

England's beech woods may disappear along with animals such as Scotland's capercaillie and snow bunting - both birds which prefer a cold environment.

The landscape may also change because of shifting rainfall patterns, more extreme weather and rising sea levels, the report predicts. Arable farming may migrate to the west as parts of East Anglia become too dry to cultivate.

"Climate change will affect our wildlife but nature is difficult to predict" said Mr Sparks. "What is clear is that we need to act now if we are able to help the natural world to survive and adapt to future change."

Under a warming climate, Britain may be invaded by new animals and plants. Among birds, the candidates include the black kite, cattle egret and hoopoe. There may also be new moths and butterflies, including the mazarine blue butterfly and the black-veined white butterfly.

More evidence of change

CRICKETS

The long-winged conehead, formerly restricted to the
south coast, has moved 60 miles north.

RED ADMIRAL BUTTERFLY

A migrating species that is now spending the winter in
the UK.

FROGS

Spawning has occurred before Christmas for several
years in milder parts of Cornwall. Researchers have
discovered dozens of cases in October and as far north
as Northern Ireland.

BUMBLEBEES

Activity in winter is aided by exotic flowers but
scientists have logged 4,000 reports of bees in
January in what is called a "significant change" in
behaviour.

DAFFODILS

Flowering is no longer restricted to spring with it
being spotted on Christmas Day. There are similar
changes with the white dead-nettle.

OAK TREES

In the past 50 years the oak has come into leaf three
weeks earlier. In southern England leaves now emerge
in late March.

GRASS

Now grows all year with 7 per cent of respondents to
the survey in Scotland cutting their grass in winter.
©2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=629530

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 16, 2005, 9:54am

EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND US LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2005


We foresee an above-average hurricane season for the Atlantic basin in 2005. Also, an above-average probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is anticipated. We have adjusted our forecast upward from our early December forecast and may further raise our prediction in our later updates if we can be sure El Niño conditions will not develop.

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/april2005/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 24, 2005, 8:45am

Kicking up a storm with the cloud seeders

* 16 April 2005

* Kate Ravilious is a science journalist based in Edinburgh in the UK

CANONS blazed and aircraft deployed their payloads, but not a drop of blood was shed in the battle between the cities of Pingdingshan and Zhoukou in Henan province, China, on 10 July last year. That's because their targets weren't people, but clouds.

The blistering dry spell that struck the province threatened to cause water shortages and ruin crops. The problem was frustratingly clear: though clouds drifted across the skies, too few would give up their water as rain. To coax the water out, Pingdingshan meteorologists decided to resort to a controversial practice they believed would help the heavens break, called cloud seeding. Anti-aircraft guns and rockets were used to bombard pregnant clouds with a fine spray of silver iodide crystals in the hope they would prompt large droplets to form in the cloud, and thus produce more rain.

A few hours later it looked like their gambit had paid off. Westerly winds blew the clouds over Pingdingshan, where they dropped 10 centimetres of rain. But later that day only 2.5 centimetres of rain fell over Zhoukou, further east.

Meteorologists at Zhoukou cried foul. In the war of words that followed, they claimed Pingdingshan's cloud seeding had caused rain that would have fallen over Zhoukou to fall early. Nonsense, Pingdingshan officials retorted: clouds are complex systems, and seeding shouldn't affect the chance of rain 120 kilometres away.

"There's no scientific evidence that cloud seeding can dry clouds out," says Yan Yin, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth, UK. "But I'm not surprised they quarrelled. In China the effectiveness of cloud seeding is an article of faith. They seed clouds all the time." Indeed, 23 of its 34 provinces have "weather modification bureaux" and routinely seed clouds. But does showering a cloud with chemical particles really cause more rain to fall?

Take a glance at many other countries around the world and you'd be forgiven for thinking the answer is a clear-cut yes. Australia, the United States, Israel, South Africa, Russia and India all have extensive private or public cloud seeding programmes, some of which have been operating for over 50 years (see Map). Governments and businesses spend millions in the hope of wringing moisture from the clouds.



In reality the facts are far from clear. "There's no good statistical proof that cloud seeding produces more rainfall than not seeding," says Phil Brown, manager of cloud physics research at the UK's Met Office in Exeter. And even though meteorologists know how cloud seeding is supposed to work, it is difficult to measure its effectiveness. "You have to prove it was your seeding that produced the rainfall increase rather than some other effect," says Brown. And that is no mean feat.

Proof that it works will bring great rewards. Fresh water is fast becoming one of the most valuable resources on the planet. That is why scientists all over the world have spent the past 50 years trying to prove cloud seeding works. To date, no experiment has proved conclusive either way. But now a team from South Africa has completed the first long-term study of cloud seeding, and the researchers believe they at last have the evidence that, under certain conditions, cloud seeding really does increase rainfall. They claim that their method can increase the mass of water droplets in a cloud - and therefore the amount of rainfall - by up to 60 per cent (see Graph).



Clouds form in two phases. When there is enough water vapour in the air, water can condense onto naturally occurring hygroscopic - moisture absorbing - particles (such as salt crystals or dust) called cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs), to form microscopic droplets.

If the droplets are lifted by air currents, the falling temperature and pressure increase the relative humidity to a point where they can absorb more water and grow far larger. These can fall as drizzle - 100-micrometre droplets - or rain, with droplets larger than 1 millimetre (see Diagram).



In really cold clouds (below -38 °C) there is an additional stage. As the moist air rises the droplets freeze. These ice crystals can continue to grow if they collide with other ice crystals. When they fall, the air temperature below the cloud determines whether they reach the ground as snow, or melt and fall as rain.

The aim of cloud seeding is to optimise the number of droplets that form in the cloud. This is tricky. Small cloud droplets tend to grow faster than large ones, so you often end up with droplets of similar size, which therefore fall at the same speed and seldom collide - meaning no rain. Only clouds with a variety of droplet sizes will produce rain. So, the key to cloud seeding is introducing the optimum number of CCNs into a cloud - too few and the droplets won't form, too many and you end up with lots of tiny droplets that don't coalesce enough to fall out of the sky.

Because of their differing precipitation mechanisms, cold clouds and warm clouds require different seeding methods. Cold cloud seeding was discovered accidentally in 1946 by Vincent Schaefer, a scientist working at the General Electric labs in New York. He observed that spraying crystals of frozen carbon dioxide into a cold cloud chamber helped ice crystals to form. He reasoned that scattering dry ice into cold clouds would have the same effect, helping initiate precipitation. In his first trial, he scattered 1.5 kilograms of crushed dry ice into stratocumulus clouds over western Massachusetts. Because dry ice is cumbersome to carry by plane, he later switched to silver iodide - a chemical with a similar molecular structure to ice crystals - as the seed, hoping it would kick-start crystal formation in a similar way to carbon dioxide. Though the experiments were inconclusive, the idea gained attention and became known as glaciogenic seeding.

Warm cloud seeding didn't arrive until 1989. A group of South African scientists, led by the late Graeme Mather, were using an aircraft to measure the droplet properties of various clouds as part of a cold cloud seeding study. One day they sampled a very unusual cumulus cloud above a large paper mill. It had exceptionally large droplets - around half a centimetre wide - in its updrafts and a surprisingly wide range of droplet sizes at its base.

Unlike other cumulus clouds they studied, the cloud above the paper mill was producing big drops of rain. Mather and his colleagues worked out that the paper mill was inadvertently seeding the cloud above because it pumped hygroscopic particles that acted as CCNs out of its chimney stack. They were the first to realise that the large particle size was crucial, and that mimicking these hygroscopic particles could be a way to seed warm clouds and produce large raindrops. The most hygroscopic natural CCN material is common salt, so they decided to test warm cloud seeding using flares stuffed with salt crystals strapped to an aircraft wing.

Early trials were encouraging, so in 1991 Mather and his team gave up on glaciogenic seeding and started an extensive long-term hygroscopic cloud seeding trial. They devised a blind, randomised, controlled experiment, and over the course of five summers in the Highveld region of South Africa they sampled 127 warm convective storm clouds - 62 seeded and 65 left as controls. Mather's team used airborne radar to measure the average density of droplets in the clouds, which they believed would give a good indication of how much rain the cloud would produce. When they compared the data from seeded and unseeded storm clouds, they found seeding really was having an effect. "Seeded clouds evolved to have a longer duration, larger area and higher liquid content," says André Görgens, a water resources engineer on the team. On average the total mass of water droplets formed in one hour inside a seeded cloud was 60 per cent larger than for an unseeded cloud.

As a result the South African government funded the team to carry out experimental seeding programmes in the drought-stricken Limpopo province in 1997. The aim was to seed as many suitable storm clouds as possible with full scientific monitoring, and then carry out a cost-benefit analysis and environmental assessment. Over the past four years Görgens and his colleagues have been analysing the data gathered during the programme and published several papers on their findings (Water South Africa, vol 30, special edition, p 88).

They calculated that seeding just a quarter of the storm clouds in the Limpopo province would increase average rainfall by up to 10 per cent. And Görgens's cost-benefit analysis concluded that the benefits of cloud seeding outweigh the costs by a factor of 1.7. "Cloud seeding helps to keep the reservoir levels up and enables an increase in rain-fed agricultural output, such as maize, grazing and timber production," he says.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 24, 2005, 8:45am


Yin is impressed with Görgens's study. "These results are based on a statistically sound experiment and can be trusted," he says. And that's rare for cloud seeding experiments.
It's rain that matters

But there is one uncomfortable hole in Görgens's trial, as Peter Hobbs, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, points out. It's not enough to measure the density of drops in a cloud, he says. Where is the proof that the raindrops hit the ground? "Seeding can change the structure of clouds, but it is a different issue as to whether it increases rainfall." Hobbs thinks the only way to be sure is to design an experiment with a dense network of gauges to measure rainfall on the ground.

Görgens agrees that such measurements would be desirable, but says he has anecdotal evidence from local farmers that rainfall increased during storms he seeded. In future tests he hopes they will get a more accurate impression of rainfall thanks to a network of weather radars that is currently being set up across South Africa.

And of course, even if cloud seeding does work, it can only squeeze rain from existing clouds, not create new ones. "Most areas that are short of rain are also short of clouds, and you can't seed if there aren't any clouds," says Hobbs.

On the other hand, one of the major advantages of hygroscopic seeding is that warm cumulus clouds do tend to pop up in arid areas, unlike the large cold clouds required for glaciogenic seeding. Roelof Bruintjes, now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and originally a member of Mather's South African cloud-seeding team, has exported the hygroscopic seeding method to other arid areas in the world.

Between 1996 and 1999 he reproduced Mather's South African experiments in Mexico and recorded increases in droplet density of up to 30 per cent. Last year he finished a feasibility study of hygroscopic seeding in the deserts of the United Arab Emirates. Clouds are rare in the UAE, but Bruintjes reckons he has found some suitable candidates. "During the summer months thunderstorms build over the Oman Mountains, and these are feasible clouds for hygroscopic seeding," he says. He is now analysing the results, and if they are positive, he expects to start a full seeding programme in the near future.

Glaciogenic seeding has had a more chequered past. To date, most studies appear to fall short in scientific rigour. Hobbs is dismissive of studies from Israel and Colorado. "When I re-analysed their results I found that the experiments hadn't been randomised properly and they didn't have enough trials to reach statistical significance," he says.

All this could be about to change. Up in the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales, Australia, hydroelectric power company Snowy Hydro is one year into a six-year trial to see if glaciogenic cloud seeding will make winter snows heavier. Rather than spray silver iodide from aeroplanes, they are using ground-based generators that spray it directly into clouds as they rise over the mountainside. Just like the South Africa experiments, they have designed their trials to be double blind. They will monitor the clouds with radar and use a dense network of snow gauges to measure any change in snowfall at the surface.

But could cloud seeding be dangerous? Some people worry that seeding a heavily laden cloud could cause flash floods (see "Murky past of cloud seeding"). "It is not beyond the bounds of possibility," says Hobbs, "but I personally doubt it." Görgens thinks that choosing your clouds carefully will eliminate the risk of floods. However, he admits the extra water could attract more insects. Others are concerned about silver iodide pollution. But Mark Heggli of Snowy Hydro says his ground measurements after seeding have barely detected even trace levels - too low to be a danger to human health. "You get a bigger dose of silver from fillings in your teeth," he says.

Perhaps the greatest worry is the potential for cloud seeding to be used as a weapon. In 1977 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution prohibiting the hostile use of environmental modification techniques. Yet nine years ago the US air force commissioned a report entitled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the weather in 2025. The report concludes, "Over the course of the next century, the weather will be our most powerful weapon. Weather modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. By 2025 it will be in the realm of possibility."

Görgens prefers to focus on the benefits of cloud seeding. He cites indigenous tribes such as the Pedi, who live in the bushveld of the Limpopo province, as potential beneficiaries. "These people live by subsistence farming and they are very vulnerable to a shortfall in the rain. Warm cloud seeding would bring more reliable rains for them."

When Snowy Hydro's experiment is concluded we should also have a clearer picture of the effects of glaciogenic seeding, by far the most popular method around the world at the moment. But even if the results are positive, it won't clear up the controversy around cloud seeding. Just ask the people of Zhoukou.
Murky past of cloud seeding

On 15 August 1952, the people of Lynmouth in south-west England experienced a downpour like never before. The ensuing floods killed 34 people and left 420 more homeless. At the time rumours circulated that the flood could have been the result of cloud seeding trials that the Royal Air Force was conducting nearby. However, few people now think that the cloud seeding was to blame, because the RAF was seeding cumulus clouds, while the rain that deluged Lynmouth came from a large depression sitting over the region.

In 1966 the US military began operational flights on the CIA-inspired, top secret "Project Popeye". Their aim was to extend the monsoon season over south-east Asia, thereby increasing the amount of mud on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and flooding critical routes between what were then North Vietnam and South Vietnam. For seven years, aircraft flew more than 2600 sorties to disperse silver iodide into the clouds over the region, and initial results were positive, although analysts remain divided as to whether the extra mud on the trail really made much difference.

On 9 June 1972, 238 people lost their lives in floods in Rapid City, South Dakota, when nearly a year's worth of rain fell in just a few hours. Cloud seeding had been carried out nearby earlier in the day and many people believed this triggered the storm. But Harold Orville, who was involved with the seeding programme, is certain that it was not responsible. "Our seeding was done on the plains, 20 or 30 miles from the area where the heavy rains fell. Numerical simulations of the weather that day suggest that the flood would have happened anyway," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18624952.000

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 28, 2005, 5:39am

Ozone Layer Most Fragile On Record
By Paul Brown
Environment Correspondent
The Guardian - UK
4-28-5


The protective ozone layer over the Arctic has thinned this winter to the lowest levels since records began, alarming scientists who believed it had begun to heal.

The increased loss of ozone allows more harmful ultraviolet light to reach the earth's surface, making children and outdoor enthusiasts such as skiers more vulnerable to skin cancer - a disease which is already dramatically increasing.

Scientists yesterday reinforced the warning that people going out in the sun this summer should protect themselves with creams and hats.

Research by Cambridge University shows that it is not increased pollution but a side effect of climate change that is making ozone depletion worse. At high altitudes, 50% of the protective layer had been destroyed.

The research has dashed hopes that the ozone layer was on the mend. Since the winter of 1999-2000, when depletion was almost as bad, scientists had believed an improvement was under way as pollution was reduced. But they now believe it could be another 50 years before the problem is solved.

What appears to have caused the further loss of ozone is the increasing number of stratospheric clouds in the winter, 15 miles above the earth. These clouds, in the middle of the ozone layer, provide a platform which makes it easier for rapid chemical reactions which destroy ozone to take place. This year, for three months from the end of November, there were more clouds for longer periods than ever previously recorded.

Cambridge University scientists said yesterday that, in late March, when ozone depletion was at its worst, Arctic air masses drifted over the UK and the rest of Europe as far south as northern Italy, giving significantly higher doses of ultraviolet radiation and sunburn risk.

The results, which were announced at a Geophysical Union meeting in Vienna yesterday, are part of a European venture coordinated by Cambridge University's chemistry department, which has been studying the relationship between the ozone layer and climate change since May 2004.

Yesterday, Professor John Pyle, from the university, said: "These were were the lowest levels of ozone recorded since measurements began 40 years ago. We thought things would start to get better because of the phasing out of CFCs and other chemicals because of the Montreal protocol, but this has not happened.

"The pollution levels have levelled off but changes in the atmosphere have made it easier for the chemical reactions to take place that allow pollutants to destroy ozone. With these changes likely to continue and get worse as global warming increases, then ozone will be further depleted even if the level of pollution is going down."

The relationship between the depletion of the ozone layer and climate change is so complex that the EU is investing £11m in a five-year project to try to understand and predict what is happening. Reporting the results of the first year, the scientists told the meeting in Vienna yesterday that "the atmospheric lifetime of these [ozone depleting] compounds is extremely long and the concentrations will remain at dangerously high levels for another half century."

Increased greenhouse gases in the air trap more heat in the lower atmosphere, but the stratosphere far above the earth is getting colder. As a result, ice clouds form between 14 and 26 kilometres above the earth, exactly in the region where the protective ozone is found.

The European scientists reported the first signs of ozone loss in January. As sunlight returned to northern latitudes, the rate of ozone depletion increased and rapid destruction of ozone occurred throughout February and March. In the altitude range where the ozone layer usually reaches its maximum concentration, more than half of the ozone was lost. In the lower atmosphere losses were not so great.

"Overall, about 30% of the ozone layer was destroyed," said Dr Markus Rex, from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam, Germany, another member of the team. He said the cold conditions which created polar stratospheric clouds were four times more extensive in 2005 than in the 1960s and 70s.

Professor Pyle said overall the mixing of the air in the northern hemisphere was far more rapid than in the Antarctic so a "hole" in the ozone layer did not occur. Instead, as the air mixed in spring, there was a general thinning of the protective ozone over the whole of the northern hemisphere.

"It just means we have less natural protection than we should have and we are used to. It means that we should be careful about exposing ourselves to the sun, but that is already the case, this just makes things slightly worse," he said.

The UV danger Ecology altered as Earth burns

* The thinning of the ozone layer allows more ultraviolet light - or UV radiation - to reach the Earth's surface

* UV light stimulates the production of vitamin D in the skin, which strengthens bones, but it also burns and causes skin cancer, particularly in fair-skinned people. The UN environment programme estimates that for every 1% thinning of the ozone layer there is a 2% to 3% rise in skin cancer

* It also causes eye problems even if dark glasses are worn - mainly cataracts and snow blindness -and can suppress the immune response to the herpes virus and damage the spleen

* Excess UV radiation cuts photosynthesis in plants, reducing the size and yield of winter wheat

* Plankton which are constantly exposed suffer damaged DNA. As some species are more vulnerable than others, an increase in UV exposure has the potential to cause a shift in species composition and reduce diversity in ecosystems * Reducing the world's populations of phytoplankton would significantly impact the world's carbon cycle, because phytoplankton store huge amounts of carbon in the ocean

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1470944,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 29, 2005, 9:39am

Sea, Space Tell Warming Tale
4-9-5


NEW YORK (AP) -- Climate scientists armed with new data from the ocean depths and from space satellites have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, which they say validates computer projections of global warming.

Lead scientist James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the planet's out-of-balance energy exchange as a "smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change. A European climate expert called it a valuable contribution to climate research.

Mr. Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 0.6 degrees Celsius this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers said. International experts predict a five-degree leap in such a worst-case scenario.

The NASA-led researchers were able to measure Earth's energy imbalance because of more precise ocean readings collected by 1,800 technology-packed floats deployed in seas worldwide beginning in 2000, in an international monitoring effort called Argo. The robots regularly dive as much as a 1.5 kilometres under the sea to take temperature and other readings.

Their measurements are supplemented by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise both from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands.

With these data, the scientists calculated the oceans' heat content and the global energy imbalance. They found that for every square metre of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back to space as heat ñ a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere.

The 0.85-watt figure corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by the researchers' supercomputer simulations of climate change, the report said.

Those computer models factor in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases ñ produced by everything from automobiles to pig farms. Those gases keep heat from escaping into space. Significantly, greenhouse emissions have increased at a rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance, the researchers said.

"There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Mr. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."

Fourteen other specialists from NASA, Columbia and the Department of Energy co-authored the study.

Scientists have found other possible "smoking guns" on global warming in recent years, but Klaus Hasselmann, a leading German climatologist, praised the Hansen report for its innovative work on energy imbalance.

"This is valuable additional supporting evidence" of manmade climate change, he told The Associated Press.

In February, scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography said their research ñ not yet published ñ also showed a close correlation between climate models and the observed temperatures of oceans, further defusing skeptics' past criticism of uncertainties in modelling.

Average atmospheric temperatures rose about .6 degree in the 20th century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-organized network of scientists, says computer modelling predicts temperatures rising between 1.4 degrees and 5.7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Besides raising ocean levels, global warming is expected to intensify storms, spread disease to new areas, and shift climate zones, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sealth/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 29, 2005, 10:17am

Apr 23, 8:34 PM EDT

Interior could undergo dynamic breakup this spring

FAIRBANKS (AP) -- The National Weather Service is warning that conditions are right this spring for a dynamic breakup in Alaska's Interior.

Computers are telling meteorologists and hydrologists that breakup this year could involve flooding, ice jams and significant erosion in fire-ravaged areas.

Record-setting snow depths and water-content measurements have hydrologists warning of the potential for spring floods along several major Interior rivers.

"They should be getting prepared," said Scott Lindsey, a hydrologist with the National Weather Service's Alaska-Pacific River Forecast Center. "There is a potential for what the villages call 'spring flooding,' when the snowmelt ends up causing flooding after the actual breakup."



A significant amount of water, most of it locked away in ice and snow, sits in the drainages of several Interior rivers, including the Yukon, Koyukuk and even the Chena. The same is true for much of the huge Susitna River drainage in Southcentral.

Scientists describe the two kinds of breakups as "thermal" and "dynamic."

A thermal breakup, as described by Larry Hinzman of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, occurs when temperatures warm gradually over several weeks, allowing the river to thaw slowly as the ice rots.

The Interior this spring is more likely to undergo a dynamic breakup. That occurs when temperatures are relatively cool - such as experienced in the Interior over the last month - and then become very warm.

Conditions like those on Friday, with the temperature hovering at or above freezing at night, then soaring as high as 60 under increasingly sunny skies, are just right for a dynamic breakup. String together a week of conditions like that and water is streaming over frozen ground into rivers that are still locked in ice.

Rick McClure, who oversees the cooperative snow survey project for the Natural Resource Conservation Service, said hydrologists are able to predict the amount of water locked in a particular drainage.

The numbers coming out of their formulas are striking. For instance, the "volume flow forecast" for the Yukon River around Stevens Village is 116 percent of normal for April through July, McClure said. That means enough water will flow by the village to cover 48.2 million acres of land with 1 foot of water, a measurement hydrologists call acre-feet.

"Forty-eight million acres is about the size of South Dakota," McClure said.

McClure said some of the most impressive measurements came along the Yukon River near the Dalton Highway crossing, where water content was measured at 180 to 190 percent above normal, and in the White Mountains, where water content was 150 percent.

The Chena River basin also has significant water content, according to John Schaake of the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project. Schaake said there is enough water contained in snow and ice to cover the basin to a depth of 6 1/2 inches.

---

Information from: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, http://www.newsminer.com

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 8, 2005, 5:52am

Yellowstone Rated High For Eruption Threat
5-7-5


YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. - The Yellowstone caldera has been classified a high threat for volcanic eruption, according to a report from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Yellowstone ranks 21st most dangerous of the 169 volcano centers in the United States, according to the Geological Survey's first-ever comprehensive review of the nation's volcanoes.

Kilauea in Hawaii received the highest overall threat score followed by Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainer in Washington, Mount Hood in Oregon and Mount Shasta in California.

Kilauea has been erupting since 1983. Mount St. Helens, which erupted catastrophically in 1980, began venting again in 2004.

Those volcanoes fall within the very high threat group, which includes 18 systems. Yellowstone is classified with 36 others as high threat.

Recurring earthquake swarms, swelling and falling ground, and changes in hydrothermal features are cited in the report as evidence of unrest at Yellowstone.

The report calls for better monitoring of the 55 volcanoes in the very high and high threat categories to track seismic activity, ground bulging, gas emissions and hydrologic changes.

University of Utah geology professor Robert Smith, who monitors earthquakes and volcanic activity in Yellowstone, said more real-time monitoring should be helpful.

"We've really been stressing over the last couple of years that the USGS should consider hazards as a very high priority in their future," he said. "We need to get the public's confidence and the perception that we're doing it right."

The university has joined the Geological Survey and Yellowstone National Park in creating the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, which uses ground-based instruments throughout the region and satellite data to monitor volcanic and earthquake unrest in the world's first national park.

The USGS report recognizes Yellowstone as an unusual hazard because of the millions of people who visit the park and walk amid features created by North America's largest volcanic system, Smith said, a status he has been advocating for years.

Smith does not paint the devastating picture portrayed in a recent TV docudrama but said smaller threats exist. For example, a lower-scale hydrothermal blast could scald tourists strolling along boardwalks.

Emissions of toxic gases from the park's geothermal features also pose a threat. Five bison dropped dead last year after inhaling poisonous gases trapped near the ground due to cold, calm weather near Norris Geyser Basin.

Stepped up monitoring and a new 24-hour watch office could lead to more timely warnings and help avoid human catastrophes at Yellowstone and nationally, according to the USGS.

Forty-five eruptions, including 15 cases of notable volcanic unrest, have been documented at 33 volcanoes in the U.S. since 1980, according to the report, released April 29.

-----

On the Net:

U.S. Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov

Volcano Threat Report:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1164

Yellowstone Volcano Observatory:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/index.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 11, 2005, 5:54am

Britain Faces Big Chill As Ocean Current Slows
By Jonathan Leake
Science Editor
The Times - UK
5-9-5


Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream - the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.

They have found that one of the "engines" driving the Gulf Stream - the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea - has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.

The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.

Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.

"Until recently we would find giant 'chimneys' in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared," he said.

"As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe."

Such a change could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nationís power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.

Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.

Wadhams's submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.

The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the water below.

However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. "In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed," said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.

The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.

However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. "One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops," he said.

"The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film - over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe."

One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world - but with more extremes of weather.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 12, 2005, 10:05am

Clearing smog has led to 'global brightening'

* 19:00 05 May 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Fred Pearce

The efforts of industrialised nations to cut smog pollution has had a bizarre side-effect - accelerating global warming.

New data show that after years of getting smoggier, our skies have become clearer since about 1990. And one effect has been to allow more solar radiation to reach the surface of the Earth.

The phenomenon known as “global dimming” has gone into reverse, according to research by Martin Wild at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, Switzerland, and been replaced by “global brightening” (Science. vol 308, p 847). “There is no longer a dimming to counteract the greenhouse effect,” he told New Scientist.

Climate scientists say there have been two critical influences on global air temperatures in the past half-century. First, rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide have warmed the Earth, by preventing more of the heat that reaches the Earth’s surface from escaping back into space.

But a parallel increase in smog particles has shaded the planet, partly offsetting the warming. Past studies have shown an increase in average aerosol particle levels in the atmosphere between 1960 and 1990 that were sufficient to reduce solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface by about 5%.

The net effect of these two conflicting influences has been a warming of almost 0.5°C since 1960. But the rising levels of aerosols have led to concern that they might be masking greater underlying warming. And now the mask appears to be coming off.
Satellite corroboration

Wild’s new data - assembled from measurements of surface radiation made round the globe - show a widespread reduction in aerosols in the atmosphere since around 1990. His findings are corroborated by satellite data reported by Rachel Pinker, a meteorologist at the University of Maryland at College Park, US, in the same issue of Science (v 308, p 850).

The main cause of the global brightening, says Wild, is the clean-up of air pollution, especially in Europe and the former Soviet Union, where industrial decline has also played a role.

But the same trend emerges in data from North America, Australasia, Japan and, most recently, in China, where smogs have been reduced despite swift industrialisation. The exceptions, where dimming continues to worsen, are mainly in South Asia and Africa.

So should the world hurriedly reinstate smogs to stop global warming from accelerating? Probably not, as Wild points out that carbon dioxide lasts in the atmosphere for a century or more, whereas aerosols typically hang around for only a few days. So as carbon dioxide accumulates in future decades, we would need ever-thicker smogs to counteract it.

And another Science paper reports that current smog levels kill half a million people worldwide each year from heart and lung diseases.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 14, 2005, 6:36am

Australia wilts in its Big Dry
By Phil Mercer
BBC News, Sydney

Australia has had one of its warmest Aprils on record, opting for sun block and air conditioning, rather than autumn woollies and heaters.

"It was a very spectacular departure from normal," said Peter Dunda from the Bureau of Meteorology in Sydney.

In parts of New South Wales, temperatures hovered just below 30C - more than five degrees above the average.

It has not only been warm, it has also been very dry. Only once before since 1910 has Australia had so little rain in the period from January to April.

As a result, much of the country is in the grip of an unyielding drought, with an increasing number of farmers receiving emergency government aid.

Weather forecasters are warning that Australia's 'Big Dry' could get even worse.

Even if Sydney puts in a desalination plant... that eventually will be overtaken by population growth and we'll be back where we started
Environmentalist Jeff Angel

"There are some early signs that there is a slightly higher than normal risk of going into an El Niño episode in our winter and Spring period," Mr Dunda said.

Australia's climate is influenced by changes in sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean. At different ends of the spectrum lie La Niña - which is associated with floods in Australia - and El Niño - which is linked to drought.

A cocktail of various weather factors lies behind the above average April temperatures.

Firstly, the tropical monsoon has been fairly weak and failed to spread cooling moisture to the interior. High-pressure systems across those central regions have directed warm air across the southern states.

On top of all that, there were almost no cold fronts during April, which would normally bring cooler weather from the south of the continent and the Southern Ocean.

Desalination plant

All of which makes for worrying times in a county used to climatic extremes. Many Australians are already living with tough water restrictions. Supply levels at dams supplying Sydney have never been lower.



The New South Wales State government is considering a controversial desalination plant as a solution to dwindling supplies of fresh water. It had previously dismissed the idea as too expensive and ecologically damaging.

Environmentalist Jeff Angel still thinks that way.

"Even if Sydney puts in place a desalination plant that could give us up to 30% of our daily water supplies, that eventually will be overtaken by population growth and we'll be back where we started," he predicted.

"Sydney is in a very desperate situation with its four million-odd people," he added.

Campaigners are calling on decision-makers to pay far more attention to the recycling of storm and waste water.

But Marc Simon, Managing Director of Australian Water Services, which is building a desalination plant in Perth, has insisted the process will be invaluable to cities across this arid continent.

"The big benefit is to bring a diversification of supply," he said.

Mr Simon stressed that the technology was always improving and that the environmental impact of the desalination plants would be negligible.

As Australia prays for rain, this unusually warm spell has put a dent in businesses selling heaters, warm clothing and blankets.

Tourists happy

There are some positives during these anxious times, however, especially for beach lovers and tourists.

"Where I come from, autumn time is zero degrees," said 29-year-old Alex from Venice, enjoying Sydney's Bondi beach.

"The surf's been bad in recent weeks but the weather's been awesome. It feels like summertime," he said.

Tourists Clint and Michael from Dallas have also been unexpectedly impressed, leaving their jumpers and jackets back at the hotel - but not their cowboy hats.

"I knew Australia's going into winter but I didn't expect it to be this nice," said Michael, while Clint added: "I was hoping it was going to be like this but everybody said it would be a little cold. It couldn't be better."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/4516341.stm

Published: 2005/05/09 11:06:56 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 18, 2005, 7:15am

There is hope yet:

16 May 2005
Atmosphere, Heal Thyself

University of California and Purdue University researchers believe that naturally-occurring atmospheric chemicals reacting with sunlight are breaking down smog and other pollutants at a faster rate than once believed. Researchers Amitabha Sinha, Jamie Matthews and Joseph Francisco used sensitive laser techniques to study natural air cleaners called OH radicals. Their research, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to study smog-destroying OH radicals at low ultraviolet wavelengths.

Much of the hydrocarbon pollutants pumped into the atmosphere by humans result from burning organic matter such as wood or fossil fuels. The atmosphere has three main ways to cleanse itself of such pollutants. Two are relatively direct: water droplets in clouds absorb and rain them out of the atmosphere or sunlight breaks the molecules apart. "The third way is the one we are concerned with here, the way that involves breaking these hydrocarbons down chemically," said Francisco. "For that, the atmosphere relies on a reactive group of chemicals called OH radicals that attach themselves to hydrocarbons and rip them into inert pieces." OH radicals arise naturally from many atmospheric constituents. The effect they have on pollution has long been factored into models that describe the atmosphere and attempt to predict how it will react to increasing quantities of hydrocarbon pollutants, which generate smog. But these models do not always function well, in part because OH radicals are in some ways an unknown quantity. "Thanks to an innovative laser technique that at last allowed us to observe these chemicals in action, we now theorize that the atmosphere may produce up to 20 percent more OH radicals from these chemicals than we once thought," said Francisco. "We now have a better understanding of an atmospheric process that could be giving our pollution-weary lungs more breathing room."

"This study is important because it shows that the atmosphere could be generating far more OH radicals than previously thought and accounted for by current models, which neglect the new chemistry we observe," said researcher Sinha. "It could imply that the atmosphere is more effective at breaking down pollution than models have shown. We hope the results will improve our understanding of how the atmosphere works." Sinha cautioned, however, that the results do not mean we can now safely ignore atmospheric pollution. "This study in no way implies that we are out of the woods with regard to atmospheric pollution," he said. "What it means is that we need to do a much more careful job with our measurements in order to accurately account for all sources of OH radicals present in the air."

The researchers used a laser technique that allowed the team to look at the OH radical-producing molecules in a new way. More precisely, it allowed them to observe a portion of the molecules' spectrum which had been something of a blind spot for atmospheric scientists, who often detect chemical reactions by perceiving the telltale light frequencies that certain reactions are known to emit or absorb. Many sources of OH radicals strongly absorb UV light, making them easily detectable. However, the weak absorptions in the lower region of the ultraviolet spectrum, from wavelengths of about 360 to 630 nanometers, has been more challenging. "It's usually difficult to monitor what's going on in that region of the spectrum because the molecules of interest typically have weak absorption features there, so they're tough to see," said Sinha. "However, there is a lot of solar radiation coming down over this wavelength region, so even weak absorptions become important. The upshot is that a lot of atmospheric models have ignored these weak absorption features altogether, assuming that because nothing can be seen using conventional techniques, nothing must be happening."

The new sensitive laser technique, called "action spectroscopy," however, enabled the team to characterize the minute quantities of radiation absorbed by a substance called methyl hydroperoxide when it breaks up in sunlight and forms OH radicals. Methyl hydroperoxide is one of the substances that can absorb light in the lower UV spectrum, and the team theorizes that the sensitive laser technique, called action spectroscopy, could reveal OH radical production from other chemically related molecules as well.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050416013909data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 20, 2005, 5:20am

The Sunday Times - Britain

May 08, 2005

Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.

They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.

The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.

Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.

“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,” he said.

“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”

Such a change could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nation’s power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.

Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.

Wadhams’s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.

The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the water below.

However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. “In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.

The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.

However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.

“The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film — over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe.”

One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world — but with more extremes of weather.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-1602579%2C00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 23, 2005, 9:06am

As World Warms, Vegetation Changes May Influence Extreme Weather

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University climatologist has found that vegetation can significantly affect extreme weather, a discovery that could add a new piece to the global warming puzzle.


This figure of the western United States shows the impact vegetation changes resulting from global warming have on extreme climate events when compared with the effect of global warming alone. As vegetation responds to the greenhouse effect, the number of extremely hot days could double in frequency in semi-arid areas, such as the Great Basin and the California coast.

Noah S. Diffenbaugh has found that extreme weather events, such as storms and heat waves, can vary substantially in frequency and severity in a region depending on how vegetation responds to global warming. This is believed to be the first study to indicate that as vegetation responds to climate change, those changes in ground cover may affect where and how often extreme weather events occur. While climate scientists have theorized that this relationship exists, Diffenbaugh said, this study gives further credence to the idea that interactions among land, air and sunlight are more complex than we might imagine.

"Earth's climate is all about relationships, and this study shows that ground cover plays a significant part in determining changes in climate extremes," said Diffenbaugh, who is an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue's College of Science. "We are accustomed to hearing that greenhouse gases affect climate, but they are not the only factor we should consider. Our climate models also must incorporate the effect of vegetation if they are to capture the full scope of reality."

Diffenbaugh said he conducted the research, which appears in this week's issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, because extreme climate events are one of the most important variables in human interaction with the environment.

"People have suspected for some time that the greenhouse effect can change how often extreme events occur and how severe they are," he said. "We also know that climate change will affect what vegetation grows where and that those vegetation changes can feed back to further change the mean climate state. But this is the first insight we've had into whether those vegetation changes will also change the frequency and magnitude of extreme temperature and precipitation events, such as droughts and severe storms."

Using a climate model at the University of California-Santa Cruz, where he was previously a postdoctoral researcher working with Lisa C. Sloan, Diffenbaugh conducted a study on an area of the western United States, primarily examining California, Oregon, Nevada and parts of the surrounding region. The work grew from a previous study in which Sloan and graduate students Mark Snyder and Jason Bell took the quantity of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere in the mid-1700s before the Industrial Revolution – 280 parts per million, compared with today's 380 – and doubled it to obtain an idea of what the region's weather could do if CO2 levels continue to rise. Diffenbaugh took the same hypothetical high-CO2 atmosphere and factored in the effect of vegetation on the region's weather in order to compare the amount of impact vegetation would have.

"What the comparison suggests is that in some places, such as coastal Oregon, greenhouse gases would be responsible for nearly all of the changes," Diffenbaugh said. "But in central California or the Great Basin, vegetation would be a far more significant factor in regulating the changes."

Diffenbaugh said that whether vegetation feedbacks make for more or fewer extreme events depends on the region.

"Changes in vegetation cover can push the region toward more or fewer extreme events – it depends on where you look," he said. "In the high Sierra Nevada, for example, people have often theorized that as the globe warms, evergreen forests will migrate to higher altitudes and be lost as they hit the mountaintops. We certainly see this warming and the predicted forest loss. But we also see that as the forests disappear, the higher elevations may not experience as much extreme warmth as expected because environmental feedbacks the new vegetation generates may mitigate this net warming."

In other more populous places, however, the effect could be the exact opposite.

"In central California, vegetation changes could even further increase the maximum temperatures over and above what the carbon dioxide will do on its own," Diffenbaugh said. "The model suggests that as the vegetation there responds to the greenhouse effect, heat waves will be longer, more frequent and more intense."

Diffenbaugh said that while the experiment was valuable for establishing the relationship between vegetation and climate, further refinement of the methodology would be necessary.

"This is the first time anyone has tried to understand these particular relationships, and though we can see they exist, our vision is still blurry," he said. "I put together the experiment in order to better understand how the Earth works, and it has been successful on that level. But the results should not be taken as a prediction of the future. I would characterize them as a first approximation of how two important components of the climate system can interact."

One of the improvements he would like to make, he said, involves incorporating more realistic conditions into the model.

"Interpretations of this research could be challenged because it is an initial idealized experiment, not a forecast," Diffenbaugh said. "For example, I used an idealized vegetation cover for the region, and I have left out several important processes, such as the role of human land use and the role of changes in the way nutrients cycle from the earth into living things and back again."

Land use change is a critical factor, Diffenbaugh said, considering the changes that agriculture and city expansion have had on the western United States and on the planet as a whole.

"We'd like to understand how important human land use changes, such as deforestation, urbanization, et cetera, may be to extreme climate in the future," he said. "Human land use has changed over time, and these changes might be influencing our instrumental records of extreme temperature and precipitation. As urban areas expand, as they are expected to do dramatically over the next century, it will become important to know how these changes might affect how often extreme temperature and precipitation events occur and how severe those events could be."

Time also is a variable Diffenbaugh said needs to be addressed.

"Next time around, I would also like to increase the length of the simulations," he said. "What we'd really like is a model that can show us how extreme climate events respond to vegetation changes on the scale of decades or even centuries. At this point, it's a matter of devoting enough computer time to achieving that goal."

This research was sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Diffenbaugh is affiliated with the Purdue Climate Change Research Center, which promotes and organizes research and education on global climate change and studies its impact on agriculture, natural ecosystems and society.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050509170007.htm

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 27, 2005, 11:40am

25 May 2005
Glaciers May Be Shrinking But Antarctic Ice Sheet Gains Mass

While some climate change research suggests that global sea levels are rising due to global warming and the shrinkage of glaciers, a new study in Science has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass.



Curt Davis, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia, observed the ice sheet over a 10 year period using satellites and discovered that the ice sheet's interior was gaining mass by about 45 billion tons per year. The interior of the ice sheet is the only large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass rather than losing it, said Davis. "Many recent studies have focused on coastal ice sheet losses and their contributions to sea level rise," Davis said. "This study suggests that the interior areas of the ice sheet also can play an important role. In particular, the East Antarctic ice sheet is the largest in the world and contains enough mass to raise sea level by more than 50 meters. Thus, only small changes in its interior can have a significant affect on sea level."

The study suggests that increased precipitation was the likely cause of the gain. The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed this when it reported that Antarctica would likely gain mass due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. Interestingly, the study made no direct link to global warming. "We need more ice core measurements from East Antarctica to determine if this increased precipitation is a change from the past or part of natural variability," said Joe McConnell, co-author of the study. "Ice sheet response to climate change is a complex process that is difficult to measure and even more difficult to predict. The overall contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global sea-level change will depend on how mass changes in the ice sheet's interior balance mass changes from the coastal areas," concluded Davis.

Source: Media Release - University of Missouri-Columbia

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 27, 2005, 11:44am

24 May 2005
A Spoonful Of Science Helps The Climate Change Go Down
by Tim Balfour

Surfing through the mainstream media these days gives one the impression that a fair degree of consensus exists regarding climate change. It’s getter hotter…, Glaciers are retreating…, Sea levels are rising... - it all seems to be a pretty straightforward we’re-all-gonna-die sort of scenario. But let’s leave the fear factor aside for a moment and consider how complex issues like climate change are reported in the media, and more importantly, how governments make decisions about such complex issues.

In 1950’s science fiction movies, there was usually a scene where white-coated boffins would earnestly sit down with the President to brief him on how to defeat the flying saucer menace. This sort of direct communication channel between the laboratory and the seat of power is still thought to exist by many people. It’s generally assumed that governments are fully conversant with complex scientific issues and act accordingly, dutifully consulting with scientific experts when necessary. But this has never been the case and nowadays decision-making that involves science is informed more by politics than scientists. Climate change is a good example of how science is often either missing or completely misinterpreted in policy-making.

Recently, scientists hotly pursued by the press, informed us that our atmosphere is dimming due to the by-products of fossil fuel emissions not only producing greenhouse gasses, but particles (aerosols) that affect the properties of clouds. As a result, it was reported that less solar radiation was reaching the earth’s surface because the sun’s radiation was being reflected back into the atmosphere. A good thing apparently as this phenomenon has so far provided relief from the full effects of global warming. Unfortunately, any short-term relief that this may have provided was short lived. A new study then revealed that the dimming trend is now in reverse, and as a result, the earth will be subject to global brightening1. This trend, we are told, reveals that the cloud pollutants shielding the Earth’s surface from greater solar radiation are decreasing. Why? Well again there is little agreement on this, but there is yet more doom-and-gloom to this story. While particles previously shielding us from solar radiation are diminishing, greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are not. Some greenhouse gasses have an extended life span and can hang for a century or more. So in this respect, some scientists are claiming we are already committed to an unacceptable rise in global temperatures in the future. But climate change is just as much an argument about whether humans are the cause of it as it is about whether global warming is happening at all. The collective body of scientists who comprise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2 (IPCC) claim that human activity does contribute to the problem. But how much are we contributing to what might otherwise be naturally occurring changes? What can we do about the melting polar ice caps? Is the earth dimming or brightening? And if it’s dimming does that mean I can keep using fossil fuels? Or is it the other way around? Science is not supposed to be a realm of ambiguity and uncertainty. It is supposed to be the impartial final word. The truth is that the hard scientific facts that filter down to most of us are merely snapshots of an ongoing process conducted in relatively politically neutral social spaces, which are then politicized and popularized.

Richard Dawkins3, best known for his writings on evolutionary science, argues that we should all become more knowledgeable about science. Well I couldn’t agree more, especially since 40 percent of Americans think that early man shared the Earth with dinosaurs. The dimwitted public is thus captive to the authoritarian and agenda setting voices of the politician and the media. With Joe Public having a less than adequate understanding of science, politicians can, and do, cherry-pick scientific research to strengthen their case for climate change policy.

Academic Roger Pielke4, of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, takes the view that politicians are hijacking scientific discovery for their own ends, and getting away with it because of our faith in indisputable ‘scientific fact’. Pielke says that the interface between actual science, and mediated science, is the difference between the meaning and significance of findings. But forget politicians, they’re in the dark as much as we are, and scientists should be left to do what they do best. It’s true that science should be conducted in as neutral a space as is possible. And scientists probably feel at home in a vacuum anyway. However, being free from the framing and spin-doctoring of government and political advocates can only last so long, as those ideas have to emerge at some point, and once in the public realm developments in science are fair game. While many of us like to keep pace with scientific developments we often miss some of science’s subtleties and are, on occasion, guilty of glossing over the fluid and transient nature of the physical world. This is the kind of stark realization that many have no doubt had to face of late, after being confronted by the increasingly un-simple reports on climate change that may leave many bewildered. If the public are to contribute to scientific debate and eventual policy direction at all they are going to have to be properly informed. This leaves the bulk of the responsibility to journalists. There is no question that scientific consensus promoted by the mainstream media affects public attitudes on climate change, which in turn establishes what politicians can get away with.

The public needs to become more science savvy, as well as being skeptical of any scientific consensus on climate change, especially when it is quite likely that it is informed more by politics than science. In the cold light of day, reason tells me that we, the public, are at the wrong end of the science information loop. Regardless, I turn on the PC, pick up the newspapers and assume my public duty of taking a spoonful of science to help the complexity go down.

References

1. Nature Magazine (2005). Clear skies end global dimming. Available: http://npg.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005). http://www.ipcc.ch
3. Dawkins, R. (1996). Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. [online] Available: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl....2dimbleby.shtml
4. Pielke, R. (2003). The Significance of Science. University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Available: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.15.pdf

Additional Links

* Science Magazine (2005): Assessing Methane Emissions from Global Space-Borne Observations http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5724/1010
* BBC: Science and Nature. (2005). Global Dimming [Transcript]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
* Quarterly Review: Global Climate Change. (2000). Harvard Medical School: Center for Health snd the Global Environment. Available: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/rindfull-v3n1.htm
* The National Acadamies: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 28, 2005, 9:38pm

Story location: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1040837
First-Ever Seattle Heat Warning Issued


AP logo Saturday, May 28, 2005 5:48 a.m. ET
By DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE (AP) -- Make that an iced coffee. While the Northeast was bidding farewell to unseasonable temperatures in the 40s, residents of the northwest corner of the nation dusted off the sunscreen and shorts Friday as the National Weather Service issued its first-ever heat advisory for Seattle.

The advisory covering the urban corridor from Tacoma north to Everett was prompted by a second day of record temperatures. Friday's high of 89 degrees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport broke a 33-year-old record for the date. Thursday's high _ also 89 degrees _ broke a 58-year-old record.
Story Tools
Single-page version of this story optimized for printing Email this story to a friend or colleague
Names Mentioned

* Dustin Guy

More Wire Service Stories

* Breaking News
* Business
* Entertainment
* Politics
* Science
* Sports
* Technology
* World

Phyllis Cameron, 92, planned to keep cool with lots of iced tea and a few gin-and-tonics. "I'm just going to enjoy it on the chaise on my deck," said the lifelong Seattle resident.

The weather service, however, was advising that people should drink lots of water, stay indoors and out of the sun, and check on relatives and neighbors.

The advice didn't seem to be taking. Winter-pale flesh was on display in the city's parks, and the streets were packed with people drinking iced coffee.

Seattle is among the cities added this year to the weather service's excessive heat program. A heat advisory means conditions could lead to heat stress in some people and a warning indicates a higher possibility that people will get sick or die.

The organizers of the annual Northwest Folklife music festival welcomed the heat, which boosted attendance for the normally slow first day. Concertgoers crowded into Seattle Center, enjoying the music, the sun and a giant fountain shooting cool water 120 feet into the air.

Last year it rained, said Rafael Maslan, 20, a festival board member.

Seattle-area temperatures were expected to cool over the weekend, and Weather Service meteorologist Dustin Guy said the heat advisory would not be renewed for Saturday.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 4, 2005, 12:29am

Acid Rain On Increase In China
The Guardian - UK
6-2-5


BEIJING (AP) -- More of China's cities are suffering from acid rain and its big rivers and lakes are heavily polluted, the government said yesterday in a report that highlighted the environmental costs of surging economic growth.

Two-thirds of the countries household sewage was untreated last year, while "heavy pollution" tainted some cities' air, according to a report by the state environmental protection agency.

Acid rain - blamed on smoke from coal-burning factories and power plants - is spreading, with the number of cities suffering from severe levels rising last year to 218.

China's environment has been ravaged by two decades of breakneck growth, and by the pressure of feeding and housing a population of 1.3 billion. Official efforts to reduce pollution have had limited success.

"Rapid economic growth has intensified China's environmental problems," Wang Jirong, a deputy director of the environmental agency, said at a news conference.

In Beijing, the government is pouring money into moving polluting industries out of the capital in an effort to clean up the city before the Olympics in 2008.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1498276,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 5, 2005, 10:59am

Environment atlas reveals planet wide devastation
Fri Jun 3, 2005 8:07 PM ET

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - The devastating impact of mankind on the planet is dramatically illustrated in pictures published on Saturday showing explosive urban sprawl, major deforestation and the sucking dry of inland seas over less than three decades.

Mexico City mushrooms from a modest urban center in 1973 to a massive blot on the landscape in 2000, while Beijing shows a similar surge between 1978 and 2000 in satellite pictures published by the United Nations in a new environmental atlas.

Delhi sprawls explosively between 1977 and 1999, while from 1973 to 2000 the tiny desert town of Las Vegas turns into a monster conurbation of one million people -- placing massive strain on scarce water supplies.

"If there is one message from this atlas it is that we are all part of this. We can all make a difference," U.N. expert Kaveh Zahedi told reporters at the launch of the "One Planet Many People" atlas on the eve of World Environment Day.

Page after page of the 300-page book illustrate in before-and-after pictures from space the disfigurement of the face of the planet wrought by human activities.

U.N. Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer has chosen efforts to make cities greener as this year's theme for World Environment Day on Sunday on the basis that the world is becoming increasingly urbanized.

"Cities pull in huge amounts of resources including water, food, timber, metals and people. They export large amounts of wastes including household and industrial wastes, wastewater and the gases linked with global warming," he said in a statement.

"Thus their impacts stretch beyond their physical borders affecting countries, regions and the planet as a whole.

"So the battle for sustainable development, for delivering a more environmentally stable, just and healthier world, is going to be largely won and lost in our cities," Toepfer added.

The destruction of swathes of mangroves in the Gulf of Fonseca off Honduras to make way for extensive shrimp farms shows up clearly in the pictures.

The atlas makes the point that not only has it left the estuary bereft of the natural coastal defense provided by the mangroves, but the shrimp themselves have been linked to pollution and widespread damage to the area's ecosystem.

And images of the wholesale destruction of vital rainforest around Iguazu Falls -- one of South America's most spectacular waterfalls -- on the borders between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay evoke comparisons with a bulldozer on a rampage.

"These illustrate some of the changes we have made to our environment," Zahedi said. "This is a visual tool to capture people's imaginations showing what is really happening."

"It serves as an early warning," he added.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 5, 2005, 10:59am

Climate change: Uncharted waters?

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

As part of Planet Under Pressure , a BBC News series looking at some of the biggest environmental problems facing humanity, Alex Kirby explores the implications of climate change.

Climate change is our biggest environmental challenge, says the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, calls it a far greater global threat than international terrorism.

There is wide though not unanimous agreement from scientists that they are right.

It is certainly possible that warming temperatures could take the Earth into uncharted waters, even though nobody can say exactly how fast it may happen and who will be most affected.

Life on Earth exists only because of the natural greenhouse effect, the ability of the atmosphere to retain enough heat for species to thrive (and no more).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, says rising levels of industrial pollution are unnaturally enhancing this effect, with increasing amounts of heat trapped near the Earth instead of escaping into space.


The main culprits, it says, are the burning of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - and changes in land use.

The chief greenhouse gas from human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 270-280 parts per million (ppm).

They now stand at almost 380ppm, and have been rising at about 1.5ppm annually.

Rising temperatures

The consequence of increasing CO2 and other pollutant levels, the IPCC says, will be higher average global temperatures, meaning unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, and perhaps runaway heating as the whole climate system slips out of gear.

The IPCC predicts that if we go on as we are, by 2100 global sea levels will probably have risen by 9 to 88cm and average temperatures will be between 1.5 and 5.5C higher than now.

That may not sound very much - but the last Ice Age was only 4-5C colder than today.

The sceptics are unmoved. Some say the human influence on the climate is negligible, and that isolating one small variable, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, in an immensely complex natural system is meaningless.

Others insist the IPCC's measurements are flawed and its predictions unreliable. Yet others believe a warmer world would be better for most of us.

They are entirely right to argue that there are still many uncertainties about the climate and any influence we may have on it.

Sobering facts

But many who were once sceptics now accept that enhanced climate change is happening, and that we have to respond - not necessarily by trying to reduce its extent but by adapting to its effects.

Part of the problem is that climate change is now part of the stuff of science fiction, with Hollywood and some campaign groups alike feeding scare stories that owe little, if anything, to scientific fact.

But the facts are sobering enough. We know that average global surface temperatures have risen by 0.6C in the last 140 years.

All of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990, including each year since 1997.

The possibilities are sobering too.

Many water-scarce regions now will probably become thirstier.

Some countries may be able to produce bigger harvests, but in others yields will drop. Sea level rise may make many coastal areas uninhabitable.

Weather patterns may change, producing more heat waves, droughts, floods and violent storms.

Aid agencies are warning that these combined effects could seriously jeopardise attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty.

Furthermore, there is also the possibility of "positive feedbacks"- for example, higher temperatures may release more methane from the Arctic tundra and CO2 from peat bogs, which will themselves speed up the warming process.

Then there is the inertia of the atmosphere and the oceans.

Delayed effect

If somehow we could halt all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the heating would continue for decades or centuries.

What we do today may literally determine how long the Greenland icecap survives - even though, at fastest, it will still take a good few centuries to disappear.

And wildlife, less equipped to adapt than humans, could be hit hard. One estimate suggests hundreds of thousands of species may be at risk of extinction by 2050 because of climate change.

Creating worldwide consensus on this global problem is difficult, not least because of the economic cost of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol, which commits rich countries to reducing emissions, is a small but necessary start on building an international system for tackling climate change, its proponents believe.

But the country responsible for about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, the US, has refused to sign up to it.

The protocol does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, although fast-industrialising countries like China will soon be significant contributors as those in poor nations increasingly demand rich world lifestyles.

For them, emissions cuts could have significant social costs in slowing the growth that feeds economic development, creates jobs and helps lift the poor out of poverty.

A prudent look at the evidence, preliminary though it is, suggests we shall be wise to err on the side of caution.

Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said recently: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate.

"We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening."

And what's happening now could lead to a world beyond our experience.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4061871.stm

Published: 2004/12/03 09:56:45 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 5, 2005, 11:01am

Secret Pentagon Report: Climate Change Will Destroy Us
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
The Observer - UK
6-4-5


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

First published February 22, 2004.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 6, 2005, 9:47am

6 June 2005
Arctic Lakes Shrinking

Arctic warming could be behind a decrease in the number and size of Arctic lakes, say researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the University of California Los Angeles. Their study, appearing in Science, compares satellite photographs of Siberia taken in the 1970s to photographs from 1997-2004.

Researcher Larry Hinzman, from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, tracked the changes occurring to more than 10,000 large lakes over an area of 200,000 square miles. He also compared satellite data of tundra ponds on the Seward Peninsula in Alaska and found that the surface pond area there had decreased over the last 50 years. "This is the first paper that demonstrates that the changes we are seeing in Alaskan lakes in response to a warming climate is also occurring in Siberia," said Hinzman. In the latest study, the total number of large lakes decreased by 11 percent. While many did not disappear completely, they shrank significantly. The overall loss of lake surface area was a loss of approximately 6 percent. In addition, 125 lakes vanished completely and are now re-vegetated.

The study's lead author, Laurence Smith from UCLA, was surprised by the overall loss in surface water. "We were expecting the lake area to have grown with climate change," said Smith. "And while it did do so in the north where the permafrost remains intact, lake area did not increase in the south where permafrost is warming." In permafrost regions, summer thaw produces meltwater, which is typically unable to infiltrate into the ground because of the ice-rich frozen soils found in permafrost. Data gathered from the latest measurements indicate that warming temperatures lead to increased numbers of surface water bodies in the colder permafrost regions. However, the researchers believe that as the climate continues warming, even those lakes would eventually be susceptible to loss. "We expect areas of continuous permafrost to continue to thin and move steadily northward, resulting in the disappearance of more lakes," said Smith.

In regions with thin or discontinuous permafrost, surface soils become drier as the permafrost degrades. "The changing lakes are a consistent, measurable indication of the overall changes to hydrology in the Arctic," said Hinzman. "The loss of surface water will inevitably impact local ecosystems, which will have a cascading effect. Changes could include loss of migratory bird habitat resulting in an effect on subsistence activities as well as changes to local and regional atmospheric conditions."

Source: Media release - University of Alaska Fairbanks

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 6, 2005, 9:54am

Report: La. sinking into Gulf of Mexico

WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said much of southern Louisiana may sink into the Gulf of Mexico by the end of the century.

The administration's report said the northern Gulf of Mexico is sinking much faster than previously thought, and the Texas coastline could also be in danger, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

The report said a small metal disk bolted to the ground, which provides a standard elevation above sea level for land surveying and mapping as well as determining flood-prone areas, has been sinking along with everything else. The authors of the NOAA report said geologists had previously interpreted the yardstick's readings as minimal geologic subsidence along most of the Louisiana coast, but the NOAA now believes the state's entire coastal region is sinking at least 5 feet every century.

The authors said a similar situation may be developing a few miles south of Houston.

"Subsidence doesn't stop at the Texas border," said Roy Dokka, a co-author of the NOAA report and a Louisiana State University geologist.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 7, 2005, 4:38am

Strange Ozone Hole this Year

Summary - (Jun 3, 2005) Even through large levels of ozone were destroyed in the Earth's atmosphere this winter, NASA's Aura spacecraft detected that the ozone layer is actually looking quite healthy above the arctic, and did its job stopping harmful ultraviolet radiation. This strange paradox is explained by a very unusual winter in the Arctic, where stratospheric winds brought in large quantities of ozone from the Earth's middle latitudes. This was the first winter monitored by Aura, which was launched in 2004.

Despite near-record levels of chemical ozone destruction in the Arctic this winter, observations from NASA's Aura spacecraft showed that other atmospheric processes restored ozone amounts to near average and stopped high levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching Earth's surface.

Analyses from Aura's Microwave Limb Sounder indicated Arctic chemical ozone destruction this past winter peaked at near 50 percent in some regions of the stratosphere, a region of Earth's atmosphere that begins about 8 to 12 kilometers (5 to 7 miles) above Earth's poles. This was the second highest level ever recorded, behind the 60 percent level estimated for the 1999-2000 winter. Data from another instrument on Aura, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, found the total amount of ozone over the Arctic this past March was similar to other recent years when much less chemical ozone destruction occurred. So what tempered the ozone loss? The answer appears to lie in this year's unusual Arctic atmospheric conditions.

"This was one of the most unusual Arctic winters ever," said scientist Dr. Gloria Manney of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., who led the Microwave Limb Sounder analyses. "Arctic lower stratospheric temperatures were the lowest on record. But other conditions like wind patterns and air motions were less conducive to ozone loss this year."

While the Arctic polar ozone was being chemically destroyed toward the end of winter, stratospheric winds shifted and transported ozone-rich air from Earth's middle latitudes into the Arctic polar region, resulting in little net change in the total amount of ozone. As a result, harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth's surface remained at near-normal levels.



Imagery and an animation depicting the Microwave Limb Sounder and Ozone Monitoring Instrument 2005 Arctic ozone observations may be viewed at:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone-aura.html

Extensive ozone loss occurs each winter over Antarctica (the "ozone hole") due to the extreme cold there and its strong, long-lived polar vortex (a band of winds that forms each winter at high latitudes). This vortex isolates the region from middle latitudes. In contrast, the Arctic winter is warmer and its vortex is weaker and shorter-lived. As a result, Arctic ozone loss has always been lower, more variable and much more difficult to quantify.

This was the first Arctic winter monitored by Aura, which was launched in July 2004. Aura's Microwave Limb Sounder is contributing to our understanding of the processes that cause Arctic wind patterns to push ozone-rich air to the Arctic lower stratosphere from higher altitudes and lower latitudes. Through Aura's findings, scientists can differentiate chemical ozone destruction from ozone level changes caused by air motions, which vary dramatically from year to year.

"Understanding Arctic ozone loss is critical to diagnosing the health of Earth's ozone layer," said Dr. Phil DeCola, Aura program scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington. "Previous attempts to quantify Arctic ozone loss have suffered from a lack of data. With Aura, we now have the most comprehensive, simultaneous, global daily measurements of many of the key atmospheric gases needed to understand and quantify chemical ozone destruction."

Ozone loss in Earth's stratosphere is caused primarily by chemical reactions with chlorine from human-produced compounds like chlorofluorocarbons. When stratospheric temperatures drop below minus 78 degrees Celsius (minus 108 degrees Fahrenheit), polar stratospheric clouds form. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of these clouds activate chlorine, converting it into forms that destroy ozone when exposed to sunlight.

The data obtained by Aura were independently confirmed by instruments participating in NASA's Polar Aura Validation Experiment, which flew underneath Aura as it passed over the polar vortex. The experiment, flown on NASA's DC-8 flying laboratory from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif., carried 10 instruments to measure temperatures, aerosols, ozone, nitric acid and other gases. The experiment was carried out in January and February 2005.

Aura is the third and final major Earth Observing System satellite. Aura carries four instruments: the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, built by the Netherlands and Finland in collaboration with NASA; the High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder, built by the United Kingdom and the United States; and the Microwave Limb Sounder and Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer, both built by JPL. Aura is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

For more information on Aura on the Internet, visit: http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/

For more information on the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Internet, visit: http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Original Source: NASA/JPL News Release

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 10, 2005, 11:02am

G8 Scientists Tell Bush: Act Now - Or Else...
Unprecedented Warning As Global Warming Worsens
By Steve Connor
Science Editor
The Independent - UK
6-8-5


An unprecedented joint statement issued by the leading scientific academies of the world has called on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change.

The national academies of science for all the G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, India and China, have warned that governments must no longer procrastinate on what is widely seen as the greatest danger facing humanity. The statement, which has taken months to finalise, is all the more important as it is signed by Bruce Alberts, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, which has warned George Bush about the dangers of ignoring the threat posed by global warming.

It was released on the day that Tony Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, where the American President was expected to reaffirm his opposition to joining the Kyoto treat to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Over dinner at the White House last night, Mr Blair appeared to make little progress on one of his main priorities for Britain's year chairing the G8 - a new international effort to combat climate change. The Prime Minister is trying to draw the US, China and India into the discussion, but there is little sign that the Bush administration will accept the growing scientific evidence about the problem.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's national academy of sciences, lambasted President Bush yesterday for ignoring his own scientists by withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty. "The current US policy on climate change is misguided. The Bush administration has consistently refused to accept advice of the US National Academy of Sciences ... Getting the US on board is critical because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for," Lord May said.

Between 1990 and 2002, the carbon dioxide emissions of the US increased by 13 per cent, which on their own were greater than the combined cut in emissions that will be achieved if all Kyoto countries hit their targets, he said.

"President Bush has an opportunity at Gleneagles to signal that his administration will no longer ignore the scientific evidence and act to cut emissions," Lord May said. "The G8 summit is an unprecedented moment in human history. Our leaders face a stark choice - act now to tackle climate change or let future generations face the price of their inaction.

"Never before have we faced such a global threat. And if we do not begin effective action now it will be much harder to stop the runaway train as it continues to gather momentum," he added.

The joint statement by the national science academies of the 11 countries does not mention Kyoto but it does refer repeatedly to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change that spawned the 1995 protocol to limit future greenhouse gas emissions, which the US has signed up to.

Climate change is real, global warming is occurring and there is strong evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are implicated in a potentially catastrophic increase in global temperatures, the statement says. "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."

Human activities are causing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise to a point not reached for at least 420,000 years. Meanwhile average global temperatures rose by 0.6C in the 20th century and are projected to increase by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions," the statement says.

In a veiled reference to President Bush's reluctance to accept climate change by claiming that the science is unclear, the academies emphasise that action is needed now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases.

"A lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic [man-made] interference with the climate system," the statement says.

"We urge all nations... to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies."

The national academies warn that even if greenhouse gas emissions can be stabilised at existing levels, the climate would continue to change as it slowly responds to the extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. "Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them," the statement says.

CO2 on the increase

1958: A US scientist, Charles Keeling, begins measuring the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) on an extinct volcano in Hawaii. It stands at 315 parts per million (ppm).

1968: The US spacecraft 'Apollo 8' takes the first pictures of Earth from a distance, beautiful but fragile - which help start modern environmentalism. The C02 level has reached 323ppm.

1972: The UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm - the moment when the world first recognises environmental threats to the Earth as a whole. CO2 now at 327ppm.

1988: The world wakes up to the danger of climate change, with an outspoken warning from scientists, and a speech by Margaret Thatcher. CO2 level stands at 351ppm.

1992: The Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro sees more than 100 countries sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first global warming treaty. CO2 now at 356ppm.

1995: The Kyoto protocol to the UN's climate treaty is signed in Japan, binding countries, including the US, to make cuts in their CO2 emissions. The CO2 level has now reached 360ppm.

2000: Obvious that the 1990s were the hottest decade in the global temperature record, with 1998 the hottest year in the northern hemisphere for 1,000 years. CO2 is 369ppm.

2001: George Bush withdraws the US, the world's biggest CO2 emitter, from Kyoto, alleging it will damage America's economy - jeopardising the whole process. CO2 level now at 371ppm.

2003: First two weeks of August are the hottest period ever recorded in western Europe: 35,000 people die. New record high temperature for Britain. CO2 now at 375ppm.

2004: After much dithering, Russia ratifies Kyoto, enabling the protocol to enter into force despite the desertion of the United States. But that doesn't stop the CO2 level rising to 377ppm.

©2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

http://news.independent.co.uk/w

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 13, 2005, 11:20am

13 June 2005
New Slant On Volcanic Climate Change

Scientists have known for some time that airborne volcanic particles (aerosols) can reflect the Sun's rays back out into space and cool the planet for relatively short periods. But now, British scientists have discovered another cooling mechanism triggered by volcanic activity that has the potential to cool the Earth for much longer periods. Vincent Gauci, Nancy Dise and Steve Blake of the Open University have been studying a simulation of one of Europe's largest eruptions, the Icelandic Laki eruption of 1783, which caused widespread crop damage and deaths around Europe. "Our findings show that volcanic eruptions have another, more indirect, effect: the resulting sulfuric acid from the volcano helps to biologically reduce an important source of atmospheric greenhouse gases. At the extreme, this effect could cause significant cooling for up to 10 years or more," said Gauci.

The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, looks at the effects of the massive sulfur dioxide output usually associated with volcanic eruptions. "The amount of sulfur dioxide put out by Laki in nine months was ten-times more than the amount that now comes from all of western European industrial sources in a year. That would have caused a major natural pollution event," said Steve Blake. The researchers found that such eruptions create a microbial battleground in wetlands, with sulfate-reducing bacteria suppressing the microbes that would normally produce the powerful greenhouse gas methane. The sulfate-loving bacteria are "victorious" over the microbes producing methane, leading to a cooling effect. "We did the simulation on a peat bog in Moray in northeast Scotland; an area we know was affected by the volcanic fallout from the Laki eruption and found that the reduced methane emission lasts several years beyond the end of the acid rain. Our calculations show that the emissions would take many years to recover - far longer than volcanoes are currently understood to impact on the atmosphere," Gauci added.

The researchers now think that volcanoes may exert a more powerful influence over Earth's atmosphere and climate than was previously thought. Volcanoes may even be a more important regulator of wetland greenhouse gases than modern industrial sources of acid rain. "Wetland ecosystems are the Earth's biggest source of methane and many of these wetlands seem to be located in volcanically active regions such as Indonesia, Patagonia, Kamchatka, and Alaska. Even some wetlands that are quite far away from volcanoes, such as those in Scandinavia or Siberia, will be regularly affected by Laki-like pollution events from Icelandic eruptions" said Gauci.

Gauci added that there was a period of Earth's pre-history when this effect may have created important climate changes. "This interaction may have been particularly important 50 million years ago, when the warm greenhouse climate of the day was due, in large part, to methane from the extensive wetlands that covered the Earth at that time. During that time, large volcanic eruptions could have been real agents of rapid climate change due to this mechanism."

The research also points to a long recovery period for ecosystems that have experienced man-made acid rain. "We've been getting on top of the sulfur pollution problem in Europe and the U.S. for a long time now. Our findings show, however, that the effects of acid rain can still linger for a long time," concluded Gauci.


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050513005339data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 17, 2005, 5:35pm

NOAA: 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook

Issued: 16 May 2005

Atlantic Hurricane Outlook & Seasonal Climate Summary Archive


SUMMARY

NOAA’s 2005 Atlantic hurricane season outlook indicates a 70% chance of an above-normal hurricane season, a 20% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 10% chance of a below-normal season. This outlook is produced by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC), Hurricane Research Division (HRD), and National Hurricane Center (NHC). See NOAA’s definitions of above-, near-, and below-normal seasons.



The outlook calls for 12-15 tropical storms, with 7-9 becoming hurricanes, and 3-5 of these becoming major hurricanes. The likely range of ACE index is 120%-190% of the median. This prediction reflects a very likely continuation of above-normal activity that began in 1995.

The predicted 2005 activity reflects 1) an expected continuation of conditions associated with the tropics-wide multi-decadal signal, which has favored above-normal Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995, and 2) an expected continuation of warmer sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean than can be accounted for by the multi-decadal signal alone. The outlook also reflects the expectation of ENSO-neutral conditions (no El Niño or La Niña) during August-October, the peak months of the hurricane season. An updated Atlantic hurricane outlook will be issued in early August.

DISCUSSION

1. Expected Activity- 70% chance above normal, 20% chance near normal, 10% chance below normal

An important measure of the total seasonal activity is NOAA’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index, which accounts for the collective intensity and duration of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes during a given hurricane season. The ACE index is also used to define above-, near-, and below-normal hurricane seasons (see Background Information). A value of 117% of the median (Median value is 87.5) corresponds to the lower boundary for an above-normal season.

For the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season the ACE index is expected to be in the range of 120%-190% of the median. The outlook also calls for 12-15 tropical storms, with 7-9 becoming hurricanes, and 3-5 of these becoming major hurricanes [categories 3-4-5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale]. While it is reasonable to expect this range of tropical storms and hurricanes, the total seasonal activity measured by the ACE index can certainly be in the predicted range without all three of these criteria being met.

The vast majority of the tropical storms and hurricanes in 2005 will form during August-October. Many of these are likely to form over the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea in the region between 9°N-21.5°N (green box), which is typical for above-normal seasons. These systems generally track westward toward the Caribbean Sea and/or United States as they strengthen. Historically, similar seasons have averaged 2-3 landfalling hurricanes in the continental United States and 1-2 hurricanes in the region around the Caribbean Sea. However, it is currently not possible to confidently predict at these extended ranges the number or intensity of landfalling hurricanes, and whether or not a given locality will be impacted by a hurricane this season.

2. Expected Climate Conditions – Active multi-decadal signal, above-average Atlantic Ocean temperatures, ENSO-neutral conditions

Beginning with 1995 all of the Atlantic hurricane seasons have been above normal, with the exception of two El Niño years (1997 and 2002). This contrasts sharply with the generally below-normal activity observed during the previous 25-year period 1970-1994 (Goldenberg et al. 2001, Science). Time series of key atmospheric wind parameters and Atlantic SSTs highlight the dramatic differences between these above-normal and below-normal periods. Conditions were also very conducive above-normal hurricane seasons during the 1950s and 1960s, as seen by comparing Atlantic SSTs and seasonal ACE values.

The regional atmospheric circulation features and oceanic conditions causing these very long-period fluctuations in hurricane activity are linked to the tropics-wide multi-decadal signal (Bell and Chelliah, Journal of Climate 2005). This multi-decadal signal has been very conducive to above-normal hurricane seasons since 1995, and is again a main factor guiding the 2005 outlook.

Over the North Atlantic, key aspects of the multi-decadal signal expected during the 2005 hurricane season include 1) lower surface air pressure, warmer SSTs, and increased moisture across the central and eastern tropical Atlantic, 2) an amplified subtropical ridge at upper levels across the central and eastern North Atlantic, 3) reduced vertical wind shear in the deep tropics over the central North Atlantic, which results from an expanded area of easterly winds in the upper atmosphere (green arrows) and weaker easterly trade winds in the lower atmosphere (dark blue arrows), and 4) a configuration of the African easterly jet (wavy light blue arrow) that favors hurricane development from tropical disturbances moving westward from the African coast.

Also expected this season is a continuation of tropical Atlantic SSTs that are warmer than can be accounted for by the multi-decadal signal. This additional warmth is more conducive to hurricane formation than would be expected from the multi-decadal signal alone.

Another factor known to significantly impact Atlantic hurricane seasons is ENSO (Gray 1984, Monthly Weather Review), with El Niño favoring fewer hurricanes and La Niña favoring more hurricanes. Based on the most recent ENSO outlook issued by NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, ENSO-neutral conditions are expected in the tropical Pacific through at least the first half of the hurricane season. Therefore, the ENSO phenomenon is not expected to impact this hurricane season.

3. Multi-decadal fluctuations in Atlantic hurricane activity

Atlantic hurricane seasons exhibit prolonged periods lasting decades of generally above-normal or below-normal activity. These multi-decadal fluctuations in hurricane activity result nearly entirely from differences in the number of hurricanes and major hurricanes forming from tropical storms first named in the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean Sea.

Hurricane seasons during 1995-2004 have averaged 13.6 tropical storms, 7.8 hurricanes, 3.8 major hurricanes, and with an average ACE index of 159% of the median. NOAA classifies all but two of these ten seasons (El Niño years of 1997 and 2002) as above normal. In contrast, during the preceding 1970-1994 period, hurricane seasons averaged 9 tropical storms, 5 hurricanes, and 1.5 major hurricanes, with an average ACE index of only 75% of the median. NOAA classifies twelve (almost one-half) of these 25 seasons as being below normal, and only three as being above normal (1980, 1988, 1989).

4. Uncertainties in the Outlook

The main uncertainty in this outlook is not whether the season will be above normal, but how much above normal it will be. There is the possibility of another extremely active season similar to that seen in 2003 and 2004, when seasonal ACE values were 200% and 257% of the median, respectively. These very active seasons resulted partly from the combination of near-record warmth across the tropical Atlantic and an amplified upper-level ridge over the western subtropical North Atlantic and eastern United States (Bell et al. 2004, 2005 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society). In the event that the subtropical ridge is again enhanced in these regions, which is not predictable at this time, the 2005 seasonal ACE value could exceed the high end of our predicted range.

A second uncertainty is that weak El Niño conditions may occur during August-October, as indicated by some ENSO forecasts. Although unlikely, El Niño conditions during this period could reduce the chance for an above-normal season.

NOAA scientists will closely monitor the evolving climate conditions. A more confident El Nino forecast will be available for NOAA’s updated Atlantic hurricane outlook to be issued in early August, which is prior to the normal active portion of the Atlantic hurricane season.

CAUTIONARY NOTES

1) It is important to recognize that it is currently not possible to confidently predict at these extended ranges the number or intensity of landfalling hurricanes, or whether a particular locality will be impacted by a hurricane this season. Therefore, residents and government agencies of coastal and near-coastal regions should always maintain hurricane preparedness efforts regardless of the overall seasonal outlook.

2) Far more damage can be done by one major hurricane hitting a heavily populated area than by several hurricanes hitting sparsely populated areas or, of course, not making landfall at all. Therefore, hurricane-spawned disasters can occur even in years with near-normal or below-normal levels of activity. Examples of years with near-normal activity that featured extensive hurricane damage and numerous fatalities include 1960 (Hurricane Donna), 1979 (Hurricanes David and Frederic), and 1985 (Hurricanes Elena, Gloria and Juan). Moreover, the nation's most damaging hurricane, Andrew in 1992, occurred during a season with otherwise below normal activity.

FORECASTERS

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center
Dr. Gerald Bell, Meteorologist; Gerry.Bell@noaa.gov
Dr. Muthuvel Chelliah, Physical Scientist; Muthuvel.Chelliah@noaa.gov
Dr. Kingste Mo, Meteorologist; Kingste.Mo@noaa.gov

NOAA's Hurricane Research Division
Stanley Goldenberg, Meteorologist; Stanley.Goldenberg@noaa.gov
Dr. Christopher Landsea, Meteorologist; Chris.Landsea@noaa.gov

NOAA's National Hurricane Center
Eric Blake, Meteorologist; Eric.S.Blake@noaa.gov
Dr. Richard Pasch, Meteorologist; Richard.J.Pasch@noaa.gov

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 20, 2005, 8:15am

Spain Warns Desert Is Spreading
By Giles Tremlett in Madrid
The Guardian - UK
6-18-5


The deserts of north Africa are threatening to leap the Mediterranean and creep through Spain, according to government figures made public as part of a national campaign to halt desertification.

A third of the country is at risk of being turned into desert as climate change and tourism add to the effects of farming.

More than 90% of land bordering the Mediterranean from Almeria in the south to Tarragona in the north is considered to be at high risk. But that figure climbs to almost 100% in Alicante and Murcia.

Spain's environment ministry has announced a £50m programme to combat desertification. Over-grazing and irrigation methods that wash away topsoil were to blame for some of the damage, experts said. Building developments and climate change were doing the rest.

Spain builds an estimated 180,000 holiday homes along its coast every year. "We have grown too quickly without protecting areas of nature," Javier Pedraza of Complutense University, Madrid, said this week.

"If things continue like this we won't need to go to Africa to enjoy the tranquillity of the desert, we can just go to the Canary Islands, Valencia or Murcia," ABC newspaper commented yesterday.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1509401,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 27, 2005, 8:59am


Pakistan heat wave toll 175
27-06-2005
From: Reuters


A HEAT wave across Pakistan has killed about 175 people over the past eight days but some areas have had relief from the blistering temperatures, officials said overnight.
The most populous province of Punjab, in the centre of the country, was the worst hit with about 120 people dying and many suffering ill effects of the extreme heat, a provincial health official said.

"There have been lot of cases of heat-stroke and dehydration reported from the 6000 hospitals and health units we have in the province," a Punjab health official said.

Health officials in the southern province of Sindh said there had been about 10 deaths over the past 24 hours taking the province's toll of fatalities due to the heat to about 55.

The highest temperature recorded during the heat wave was in Jacobabad in Sindh, which saw the mercury hit 52 degrees Celsius last Friday, a provincial official said.

A weather official said temperatures had eased in about a third of the area hit by the heat wave but the high temperatures would persist elsewhere for at least another two days.

June and July are traditionally Pakistan's hottest months before seasonal rains cools things off a bit before the mild autumn.

Hot weather in Afghanistan had melted snow across the Hindu Kush mountains, swelling rivers there and in northwest Pakistan where about 300 families have been forced from their homes by floods, a military official said.

The army has been helping victims of the floods caused by the Kabul and Swat rivers bursting their banks.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jul 8, 2005, 8:30pm

Earth Trembles As Big Winds Move In
NewScientist.com
7-8-5


Hurricanes can trigger swarms of weak earthquakes and even set the Earth vibrating, according to the first study of such effects.

When Hurricane Charley slammed into Florida in August 2004, physicist Randall Peters of Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, had a seismometer ready to monitor any vibrations in the Earth's crust. He did so for over 36 hours as Charley travelled briefly over Florida, then slid back out into the Atlantic.

As the hurricane reached land, the seismometer recorded a series of "micro-tremors" from the Earth's crust. This happened again as the storm moved back out to sea. Then, as Charley grazed the continental shelf on its way out, it caused a sharp seismic spike. "I suspect the storm triggered a subterranean landslide," says Peters.

More surprisingly, the storm also caused the Earth to vibrate. The planet's surface in the vicinity of the hurricane started moving up and down at several frequencies ranging from 0.9 to 3 millihertz. Such low-frequency vibrations have been detected following large earthquakes, but this is the first time a storm has been found to be the cause

www.arxiv.org/physics/0506162

From issue 2506 of New Scientist magazine, 01 July 2005, page 19



http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625065.900

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jul 8, 2005, 9:22pm

I always thought that the eye of the hurricane was the hottest part of the system so what is wrong with the following IR image of Hurricane Dennis:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/images/ir-e_enhanced/200507090145.gif

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jul 9, 2005, 10:41am

30 June 2005
Alarm Over Rising Acidity Of Oceans

The Royal Society in the U.K. has issued a worrying report about rising acidity in the world's oceans. "If CO2 [carbon dioxide] from human activities continues to rise, the oceans will become so acidic by 2100 it could threaten marine life in ways we can't anticipate," said report author Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution.

The world's oceans are regarded as an important sink for capturing the CO2 created by human activity. Scientists say that more than a third of human-originated CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. Marine plants soak up the gas and convert it to food during photosynthesis. Marine organisms also use it to make their skeletons and shells, which eventually form sediments. But while marine organisms need CO2 to survive, work by Caldeira and his colleagues shows that too much CO2 in the ocean could lead to ecological disruption and mass extinctions.

The pH scale used to measure acidity runs from 1 to 14, with 7 being neutral. Anything that lowers pH increases acidity. The scientists calculated that over the past 200 years, the pH of surface seawater has declined by 0.1 units. If emissions of CO2 continue to rise as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's IS92a scenario, there will be another drop in pH by 0.5 units by 2100. This level of acidity has not existed in the oceans for many millions of years. Additionally, the changes in the oceans' chemistry will reduce its ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, which will, in turn, accelerate the rate of global warming. "We can predict the magnitude of the acidification based on the evidence that has been collected from the ocean's surface, the geological and historical record, ocean circulation models, and what's known about ocean chemistry," said Caldeira. "What we can't predict is just what acidic oceans mean to ocean ecology and to Earth's climate."

Scientists believe the acidic water could interrupt the process of shell and coral formation and adversely affect other organisms dependent upon corals and shellfish. The acidity could also negatively impact other calcifying organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, some of the most important components of the planet's food chain.

Carnegie director Chris Field said the report should "sound alarm bells around the world," while it "strengthens the case for rapid progress on reducing CO2 emissions."

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jul 10, 2005, 7:29am

If this report is correct this may be an ominous warning for the 2005 hurricane season which has begun with a Category 4 hurricane called 'Dennis':

North Atlantic Water Temp At All-Time Record High
7-10-5


ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland (AP) - Ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic hit an all-time high last year, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on one of the most sensitive and productive ecosystems in the world.

Sea ice off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was below normal for the tenth consecutive year and the water temperature outside St. John's Harbor was the highest on record in 2004, according to a report released Wednesday by the federal Fisheries Department.

The ocean surface off St. John's averaged almost two degrees Fahrenheit above normal, the highest in the 59 years the department has been compiling records.

And bottom temperatures were also one degree higher than normal, according the report.

"A two-degree temperature anomaly on the Grand Banks is pretty significant in the bottom areas, where temperatures only range a couple of degrees throughout the year," said Eugene Colbourne, an oceanographer with the Fisheries Department.

Water temperatures were above normal right across the North Atlantic last year, from Newfoundland to Greenland, Iceland and Norway.

The Newfoundland data is another wake-up call on climate change, say environmentalists.

Anchorage, Alaska, has seen annual snowfall shrink in the past decade, high river temperatures are killing off millions of spawning salmon in British Columbia and northern climates around the world have noticed warming.

Meanwhile, ocean temperatures have risen around the globe, and species are already dying, said Bill Wareham, acting director of marine conservation for the Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation.

"I don't think there's a question about whether these changes are happening," Wareham said.

But "everyone's quite shocked at the speed at which these things are changing."

Air temperatures in the Newfoundland region were also higher than normal, but Colbourne said the results are not conclusive.

Water temperatures in the cold Labrador current were actually below normal levels. And while the other temperatures were record highs, a similar warming trend occurred in the 1960s, Colbourne said.

"We really can't say for sure if what we're seeing in Newfoundland waters is a consequence of global warming, when we've only got 50 years of data or so," Colbourne said.

"It may be related to global warming but, then again, it may be just the natural cycle that we see in this area of the world."

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jul 24, 2005, 8:48am

Monster Dust Cloud Heads For US
The Globe and Mail
7-23-5


MIAMI (AP) -- An enormous, hazy cloud of dust from the Sahara Desert is blowing toward the southern United States, but meteorologists do not expect much effect beyond colourful sunsets.

The leading edge of the cloud nearly the size of the continental United States should move across Florida sometime from Monday through Wednesday.

"This is not going to be a tremendous event, but it will be kind of interesting," said Jim Lushine, a severe weather expert with the U.S. National Weather Service in Miami.

He said the dust could make sunrises and sunsets spectacular.

It might not have much effect on the rest of the country, said Scott Kelly, a meteorologist with the weather service in Melbourne.

"Maybe South Texas or Mexico if that dust cloud keeps moving westward, but nothing north of Florida, unless a weather system can dive southward and pull that air northward," he said.

Such dust clouds are not uncommon, especially at this time of year. They start when weather patterns called tropical waves pick up dust from the desert in North Africa, carry it a couple of kilometres into the atmosphere and drift westward.

If the dust is concentrated enough, it could create some problems for people with respiratory problems, said Ken Larson, a natural resource specialist with the Broward County Environmental Protection Department.

"If somebody is subject to a respiratory condition, if they see hazy skies, they might want to take a little more precaution, not participate in strenuous activity and stay indoors," he said.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT
GAM.20050723.wdust0723/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Aug 7, 2005, 2:29am

As Planet Warms, Storms Grow Stronger
By Peter N. Spotts
The Christian Science Monitor
7-31-5


For years, hurricanes and typhoons have served as poster children for the hazards of global warming.

When simulated tropical storms churn inside the silicon universe of researchers' computers, such cyclones grow in power, and sometimes in number as well, as tropical temperatures increase. But when researchers have looked for global warming's fingerprints on real tropical cyclones, the evidence often has been inconclusive.

Now, one of the top researchers in the field reports that worldwide, these storms are nearly twice as powerful today as they were 30 years ago. Global warming has intensified the trend, exerting an influence stronger than he would have believed even a few months ago, he says.

"I'd been thinking of a very modest response" of tropical cyclones to climate change, "and what we're seeing is not so modest," says Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

The upshot: The 21st century could be a rough one for people who settle in hurricane or typhoon-prone areas.

As a result, more communities should be drawing on the experience of states such as Florida in devising building and zoning codes that can reduce damage and fatalities, analysts say. For people who insist on building on vulnerable barrier islands or along fragile coasts, insurance companies should be given a freer hand in deciding who they will cover and what they will charge for hurricane insurance, researchers and policy analysts say.

Strong start to hurricane season

Dr. Emanuel's results are appearing at a time when residents along the US Gulf Coast and throughout the Caribbean are still recovering from what forecasters are calling the most active start to the hurricane season on record. Since June 1, six storms grew strong enough to merit names - from Arlene to Cindy to Franklin. Three became hurricanes. Two reached a potent category four out of five. According to forecasters at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, hurricane Dennis, which reached category four on July 7, ranks as the earliest Caribbean storm on record to reach that strength.

Some researchers argue that in practical terms, the allure to live near the sea will do far more to boost society's risk from such storms over the next several decades than any effect global warming could have on the storms themselves.

Until he concluded this study, Emanuel says he was among that group. Now, he says, global warming's impact on the storms may play a bigger a role than previously believed in putting societies at risk, particularly in less-developed countries. Dr. Emanuel's research, published Sunday on the journal Nature's website, adds a fresh perspective to the discussion about the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, says Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Early on, concerns about the future of these storms arose based on computer forecasts and basic theory. "Given the information we had at the time, the results were overhyped a bit," Dr. Trenberth acknowledges. He notes that the study doesn't have much comment on the effects of storm surges and torrential rainfall that accompany land-falling hurricanes - factors far more destructive than winds.

Still, Emanuel's approach "adds a new element," says Trenberth. It shows a strong real-world correlation between the oceans' current warming trend - which scientists have linked to the heating- trapping effect of industrial carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" - and the increasing power of tropical cyclones.

Global warming vs. natural cycle

Other researchers have noted that this is more likely a natural period of intense activity for Atlantic hurricanes. For example, William Gray, a specialist in tropical meteorology at Colorado State University who pioneered seasonal hurricane forecasts, notes that the region goes through swings in activity that can span decades. He and his colleagues have noted that the US and its southern neighbors have faced above-average hurricane seasons for the past decade and is likely to do so for some time to come.

Emanuel acknowledges that such cycles are important. Depending on the region under scrutiny, the impact of natural cycles such as El Niño, or the multidecade cycles Dr. Gray observes, can swamp any global-warming signal the storms may carry. But viewed worldwide, the signal starts to appear.

His latest finding, he says, grew out of attempts to answer a broader question: Do hurricanes help drive large-scale ocean currents? These currents carry tropical waters toward the poles, bringing warmth to middle and high latitudes.

Measuring a typhoon's punch

Initial calculations suggested that hurricane activity could account for up to half or more of the driving force behind these currents. If so, a significant long-term rise in tropical cyclones could push warmer water toward higher latitudes. This could lead to warmer average temperatures at middle and high latitudes than climate models currently project.

To answer the question, however, Emanuel needed to gauge a hurricane's or typhoon's punch. So he built a measure based on sustained wind speeds over the life of each storm and on each storm's duration. Combined, they reflect a storm's total power output. Since the mid-70s, storm power fluctuated with well-known natural cycles. But through this natural "noise," global warming's signal emerged as an increase in strength that tracked rising temperatures in the tropical oceans' surface waters.

The work certainly will not be the last word on the subject. Some researchers are already raising questions about Emanuel's approach.

In one sense, however, there is broad agreement, notes Roger Pielky Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Whether scientists attribute the increased tropical cyclone intensity to global warming or natural cycles, the trend is likely to hold for at least a decade.

Looking at the costs to society from these storms, for every dollar in damage from tropical cyclones the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change anticipates by 2050, the IPCC's demographic numbers suggest that societal changes will add another $22 to $60 in impact. "If you're a planner, you're saying: We'd better get ready," Dr. Pielke observes.

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050801/ts_csm/ast
orms;_ylt=AqlPifsWfHg.DMYDxSXfbfes0NUE;_ylu=X3
oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Aug 14, 2005, 7:27pm

Icy Greenland turns green
By Richard Hollingham
BBC News, Greenland

Greenland's ice is melting rapidly. In some places, glacial levels have been falling by 10 metres a year and ultimately contributing to rising sea levels. Travelling to Greenland, Richard Hollingham sees the impact of climate change for himself.

The gleaming white executive jet taxied to a stop on the cracked concrete apron beside a couple of derelict hangers.

Beyond the rusty barbed wire and crude prefabricated buildings surrounding the airport perimeter, cliffs of dark granite rose from the valley to blend with the equally ominous grey of the sky.

No trees, no colour, no signs of life.

The door of the private plane swung down.

Onlookers, had there been any, might have caught a glimpse of the deep leather seats and walnut panelling of the interior.

Perhaps a group of sharp suited executives would emerge looking dynamic and business-like. Or perhaps some sinister men-in-black types, here on covert government business.

The first person to climb down was wearing oversized shorts, stout walking boots and a hat that looked like it had seen rather more of the world than it was perhaps designed for.

Its enormous ice cap, a sea of white stretching seemingly forever, overflows into thousands of glaciers
The next man was dressed in a clashing array of outdoor clothing and sported large tortoise-shell glasses and an unkempt beard.

Each man muttered something about the landscape being bleak.

I would like to be able to tell you that when the BBC descended from the plane we stood apart with our sartorial elegance.

But if you have ever met any BBC types, particularly radio reporters, you would know that would be a lie.

Research

We had landed at Kangerlussuaq, a community whose existence depends solely on the airstrip.

This used to be a bustling US base, servicing America's early warning system.

These days it is somewhat self perpetuating. The airport brings in supplies for the people who live here who mostly work at the airport.

I was tagging along with a group of eminent scientists, funded through the foundation of a billionaire philanthropist, Gary Comer. He has devoted his retirement to the science of global warming.

The researchers all make regular visits to the Arctic to assess the impact of climate change, not, it should be said, always in such comfort.

Retreating glaciers

Greenland is a massive island locked in ice. And from the air there is little evidence that it is melting.

Its enormous ice cap, a sea of white stretching seemingly forever, overflows into thousands of glaciers.

These in turn carve their way through the mountains to the coast.

It is only when you get near to the base of the glaciers that you can see how the landscape is changing.

A few metres above the ice, the rock is totally bare. A scar running horizontally across the valleys.

It is as if the ice has been drained away, like water in a bath, to leave a tide mark. Which is, in effect, what has happened.

The ice has melted and the glaciers have retreated hundreds of metres over the past 150 years.

New vegetation

The weather cleared and with the edge of the glacier, a giant wall of ice behind us, glaciologist Richard Alley led me across the barren rock.

This land was being exposed for the first time in millions of years
As I tripped and stumbled behind him, he bounded through scree and leapt over crevasses.

I have never seen a scientist more in his element as he pointed out deep grooves in the rock where the ice had raked the stone, or the giant boulders lifted by the glacier to balance precariously on top of tiny pebbles.

This land was being exposed for the first time for millions of years. Even a century ago, where I stood would have been solid ice, and I was struck by just how much vegetation there was.

Phillip, the biologist on the trip, was every bit as excited as Richard, identifying the dark brown lichens on the rocks, the grasses and beautiful purple flowers somehow managing to cling to just a few millimetres of soil.

Agricultural return

The Earth's climate has warmed before, albeit naturally.

A ruined church on the banks of a fjord marks the remains of a Viking farming civilisation.

The sun casts shadows through the arched window to the site of the altar, last used in the 1400s before the area was abandoned when it became too cold to support habitation.

Today, the farmers are back.

Sheep once again graze the surrounding hillside and shiny new tractors work the fields near the southern coast.

Greenland is turning green, something the rest of us should be very worried about indeed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/pr....ent/4145034.stm

Published: 2005/08/14 07:44:46 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Sept 1, 2005, 6:59am

Christians draw swords on climate
By Richard Black
BBC News website environment correspondent

A new UK organisation hopes to combat climate change through harnessing the political power of the church.

Stop Climate Chaos brings traditional environmental groups such as Greenpeace together with Christian development agencies like Christian Aid.

It is asking the government to cut Britain's greenhouse gas emissions, and to ensure that overseas aid money is invested in clean technologies.

The group plans to expand its reach to include faiths other than Christianity.

Christians should be involved with the whole of God's creation
Andy Atkins, Tearfund
"The big difference about Stop Climate Chaos is the united voice," the group's director, Ashok Sinha, told the BBC News website.

"It brings together voices from across the development and environmental sectors to ask for definitive action on climate change."

Its key demands are:

* the UK government must deliver substantial annual reductions in UK greenhouse gas emissions, meet its target of cutting CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010 and commit to an EU-wide greenhouse gas reduction target of 30% by 2020
* the UK government must make climate change a top international priority so that global warming is capped at a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This will require global emissions to have peaked and be irreversibly declining by 2015
* the government must ensure that its policies on combating global poverty include investing in low-carbon technologies and clean energy and providing significantly more assistance to the developing world to adapt to climate change

The government admitted last year that the national 20% target, a commitment in Labour's 1997 election manifesto, is unlikely to be met; indeed, over the last two years emissions have risen.

Moral imperative

Climate change will have massive impacts on the poor; that's a moral issue
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
The involvement of Christian groups such as Cafod, Christian Aid and Tearfund alongside Friends of the Earth and WWF may bring a new moral dimension to debates on climate change.

"As a development organisation, we can't ignore climate change," said Tearfund's advocacy director, Andy Atkins.

"But in addition, as a Christian organisation, Tearfund has in its operating principles that Christians should be involved with the whole of God's creation, not just people.

"We have a good biblical mandate to be involved in climate change."

The idea that Christians have a duty to campaign on climate change is already well established in the US, where organisations such as the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) lobby on Capitol Hill and in their networks of churches across the country.

"We are creation care advocates," said NAE's vice-president for governmental affairs, Richard Cizik, "and it comes straight from scripture, straight from God, who in his words said in Genesis, for example, that we are stewards of what he has created; we are to watch over and care for it.

"And the mere fact that evangelical Christians, who compose 40% of the Republican party's base, are beginning to say that this is an important issue, believe me has got the attention of people in the White House."

Prayers for the planet

In the UK, the Church of Scotland has taken a lead in the field though its Society, Religion and Technology Project, which has produced a special liturgy on climate change, and took part in a silent protest outside July's G8 summit in Gleneagles, where leaders concluded a climate agreement which has been widely derided by environmental groups.

The Church of England's report, Caring for God's Planet, endorsed a concept called Contraction and Convergence, under which all countries would limit future greenhouse gas emissions in an equitable manner.

Generally, though, religious groups in Britain have confined themselves to pointing up the problem and urging individuals to change lifestyle, through initiatives such as Operation Noah and Eco-congregation, rather than stepping into the hurly-burly roughhouse of political lobbying.

Ashok Sinha believes the decision of religious organisations to sign up to Stop Climate Chaos is an indication that things are changing.

"What it demonstrates is that this is a cross-cutting issue of our time; it's not just an environmental issue," he said.

"It will have massive impacts, including on the world's poor. That's a moral question, so it's not surprising that religious organisations will want to be involved."

Broad church

The initial line-up of Stop Climate Chaos includes no organisations linked to faiths other than Christianity, but that may change.

"The idea is to embrace people from all sectors of society," said Dr Sinha, "and we have been talking to other faith groups.

"It's early days, and we hope that they will get involved."

Potentially, the involvement of faith groups will give Stop Climate Chaos a new route into 10 Downing Street, where resides one of the most overtly Christian British prime ministers of modern times.

"We're certainly keen to discuss with Mr Blair how it affects his thinking on climate change," said Andy Atkins.

"We're not sure whether it will give us any extra access; but he is already convinced, we think, of the need to do something, although actions and policies haven't gone as far as we would want him to go."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4201372.stm

Published: 2005/09/01 09:11:17 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Sept 10, 2005, 8:35pm

The question is whether these findings can be translated to a larger scale:

Warmer soils add to climate worry
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News science reporter, Dublin

Higher UK temperatures are causing soils to "exhale" large quantities of carbon dioxide, probably accelerating global warming, scientists report.

They base their assessment on a huge analysis of soil samples gathered from across England and Wales over 25 years.

The team says its findings, if extended to the whole of the UK, suggest some 13 million tonnes of carbon are being lost from British soils each year.

The Cranfield University group reports its work in the journal Nature.

The scientists say computer models used to forecast future climate trends will now have to be revised because the calculations on which they are based will be wide of the mark.

"Our findings suggest the soil part of the equation is scarier than we had thought," Professor Guy Kirk, of Cranfield University, told journalists at the British Association's Festival of Science in Dublin, Ireland.

"The consequence is that there is more urgency about doing something - global warming will accelerate."

Indeed, as an illustration of how big a problem this is, it is likely the carbon lost from British soils since 1990 will have completely wiped out any reductions the country might have made through technological gains over the same period.

In the microbes

The National Soil Inventory of England and Wales is a remarkable project; there is nothing to match it for its scale anywhere else in the world.

At its beginnings in 1978, almost 6,000 soil locations were sampled at various depths down to 15cm. Over the intervening years something like 40% of these sites have been re-sampled and their chemistry analysed in detail.

Professor Kirk and his colleagues have been able to show that the two countries' soils have given up around 0.6% of their carbon content per annum - or just over four million tonnes in the 25 years to 2003.

And although changing how land is used - turning it from crops to woodland, for example - can change its chemistry radically, over England and Wales as a whole this did not seem to be a significant factor in controlling what was going on.

The researchers were left with only one explanation - climate change. Over the 25 years, temperatures in the two nations have risen by about 0.5C.

This, they say, would have increased the rate at which microbes in the soil could have broken down dead vegetation - wood, leaves and roots - and released its carbon content.

'Considerable' implications

The scientists cannot say for sure where all the carbon has gone. Some will have been leached to deeper layers and into waterways but most of it is likely to have gone straight into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2) - the chief gas thought responsible for driving higher global temperatures.

"If the mechanisms we describe are correct, this will be happening in other temperate countries," said Professor Kirk.

"And this is going to be more important in temperate countries than in the tropics because three-quarters of the world's carbon in soils is in temperate areas."

Nature magazine asked two scientists from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry to assess the Cranfield work.

Detlef Schulze and Annette Freibauer said: "The scientific and political implications of the new findings are considerable.

"Further research into the carbon cycle and on reducing CO2 emissions must take full account of areas where large pools of organic carbon are stored - or are being released.

"If we intend to stabilise the climate, such areas require much more serious consideration."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4224272.stm

Published: 2005/09/08 02:48:58 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Sept 18, 2005, 4:31pm

'Warming link' to big hurricanes
By Helen Briggs
BBC News science reporter

Records for the past 35 years show that hurricanes have got stronger in recent times, according to a global study.

This fits with mounting evidence which suggests the biggest storms around the world - hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones - are intensifying.

Some US scientists say that greenhouse warming may be driving the most severe events, such as Katrina, although more research is needed to be sure.

Their assessment of hurricane activity is published in the journal Science.

The idea that global warming might have an impact makes sense in theory, at least, since tropical storms need warm ocean water to build up strength.

But most scientists believe there is currently insufficient evidence to make such a claim, partly because of the lack of reliable long-term data.

Satellite data

Now, scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, have analysed global tropical cyclone statistics since satellite records began.

I think probably the sea surface temperature increase is a manifestation of global warming
Dr Peter Webster
They found that there has been a sharp rise in the number of category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones - the most intense hurricanes that cause most of the damage on landfall - over this time period.

Between 1975 and 1989, there were 171 severe hurricanes but the number rose to 269 between 1990 and 2004.

The author of the study, Dr Peter Webster, told the BBC News website: "What I think we can say is that the increase in intensity is probably accounted for by the increase in sea surface temperature and I think probably the sea surface temperature increase is a manifestation of global warming."

Natural variation

The debate is likely to continue, however, as some scientists argue that the present hurricane surge is part of a 60 to 70-year cycle linked to natural effects.

They believe climate change due to human activity will not significantly affect hurricanes and that damage caused by increased development along coastlines is a bigger factor.

Julian Heming, hurricane expert at the Met Office in Exeter, UK, says that a longer term record is needed to establish a firm link between global warming and more powerful hurricanes.

He said: "I would say that this paper corroborates the widely held view in the scientific community that whilst global warming may not be having any impact on the frequency of tropical cyclones or even the proportion which reach hurricane strength, it may have an impact on the small proportion of tropical cyclones which attain the highest strength (category 4 and 5)."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4249138.stm

Published: 2005/09/15 20:25:29 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Nov 5, 2005, 10:43am

3 October 2005
Rate of Climate Change Increasing

The finding last week from NASA that summertime Arctic sea ice was declining at such a rate that it may disappear by the end of the century has been strengthened by scientists from Germany who say that the rate of climate change is increasing.

NASA used satellite imagery to examine the extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of September, for a period going back 27 years. The researchers concluded that Arctic sea ice had declined by around 8.5 percent per decade over the period. For the ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, but this has not been the case over the past 20 years, and it is not expected to be the case in the future if new research from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology is correct.

Calculations by the German scientists suggest that over the next century the climate will change more quickly than it ever has in the recent history of the earth. The results come from the latest climate model calculations from the German High Performance Computing Centre for Climate and Earth System Research.

If the model is correct, global temperatures could rise by up to four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This could lead to the complete disappearance of summertime sea ice in the Arctic, sea levels rising by as much as 30 centimeters and more extreme weather events around the world.

"The significant result of these future scenarios is the progressive raising of mean global temperatures and the movement of climate zones in connection with that," says Dr. Erich Roeckner, the project leader of the new model. He added that, in Europe, summers will be drier and warmer, affecting agriculture, and winters will become warmer and wetter. Another consequence of the heated atmosphere will be extreme events like heavy precipitation with floods.

The climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the Earth's carbon cycle. The results seem to confirm speculation over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming.

The researchers say their climate model was verified by first simulating the climate of the last century and comparing the results with the real climate. "In this way, the theoretical models could be adapted very well to reality," said Institute Director Jochem Marotzke. The results from Hamburg will be presented in the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But not everyone agrees. A group of researchers from Duke University say that man's impact on climate change may be overstated, and that the solar cycle may have more of an effect than previously thought.

The Duke researchers say that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, according to their findings in Geophysical Research Letters.

The Duke researchers, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, examined solar changes over a period of 22 years. They filtered out shorter range effects such as volcanic eruptions, which can temporarily cool the climate, and ocean current changes such as el Nino that affect global weather patterns. Such events can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global warming.

Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming." They stressed that their finding does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. "Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity."

Based on material from NASA, Max Planck Institute and Duke University


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050902215757data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Nov 5, 2005, 10:46am

14 October 2005
Climatologists Identify Areas To Be Most Affected By Warming

Climatologists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) have been tinkering with their climate models and come up with some predictions about the areas on Earth that will be most affected by global warming. There new research appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and builds on previous work that looked at ocean temperatures and hurricanes.

The researchers say that the warming of the oceans and atmosphere will create warmer sea surfaces that will boost evaporation. Additionally, the Earth's warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture, and as this "soggy air" moves from the oceans to the land, it will dump more rain. But increased rainfall and snowfall are not the only findings to come out of the climate model. The researchers say they can also make predictions about where this increased precipitation is going to occur.

The results from the model suggest that the greatest increases will occur over land in the tropics. Heavier rain and/or snow will also fall in northwestern and northeastern North America, northern Europe, northern Asia, the east coast of Asia, southwestern Australia, and parts of south-central South America. The researchers say that these new weather patterns should be well in evidence during this century. "The models show most areas around the world will experience more intense precipitation for a given storm during this century," says lead author of the study Gerald Meehl. "Information on which areas will be most affected could help communities to better manage water resources and anticipate possible flooding."

Although water vapor increases the most in the tropics, it also plays a role in the mid-latitudes, according to the study. Combined with changes in sea-level pressure and winds, the extra moisture produces heavier rain or snow in areas where moist air converges. In the Mediterranean and the U.S. Southwest, even though intensity increases, average precipitation decreases. The heavier rain and snow will most likely fall in late autumn, winter, and early spring, while drought may be a possibility in the warmer months.

Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050913230752data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Nov 20, 2005, 6:28am

17 November 2005
Grim Future For Global Water Resources

Two new studies in Nature predict major disruptions to the world's supplies of fresh water. While some areas will become drier, others will receive much more rainfall, and others will be unable to cope with the run-off from previously ice-bound catchment areas.

The first study, from the United States Geological Survey, looks at global shifts in water availability using stream-flow measurement archives from 165 locations around the world and an ensemble of global climate models.

While water availability is directly related to climate, there is no simple relationship for all regions between future temperatures and future water resources. Some regions may experience increases in precipitation and run-off while other regions may experience decreases.

By the year 2050, the models predict 10 to 40 percent increases in runoff in eastern equatorial Africa, the La Plata basin and high latitude North America and Eurasia. Decreases of 10 to 30 percent in runoff are predicted in southern Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and mid-latitude western North America.

"A warmer atmosphere can carry more water. So, warmer winds can deliver more water to a region, but they can also take more away. This give-and-take plays out differently in different parts of the world, causing decreases in water supply here, and increases there," explained Christopher Milly, lead author of the study. The study concludes by warning that changes in sustainable water availability could have considerable regional-scale consequences for economies as well as ecosystems.

The second study, conducted by researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, examined the impact that shrinking glaciers and disappearing snow areas will have on fresh water supplies, concluding that the ensuing water shortages will impact millions of people around the world.

The study says that the forces driving these changes - described as "greenhouse physics" - show that in a warming climate more water will fall in the form of rain rather than snow, filling reservoirs to capacity earlier than normal. Additionally, a warming climate will result in snow melting earlier in the year, disrupting the traditional timetable of run-off streams. These changes mean less snow accumulation in the winter and earlier snow-derived water run-off in the spring, challenging the capacities of existing water reservoirs. Water shortages will occur in areas where reservoir capacity cannot hold the increased run-off.

Researcher Tim Barnett said some areas will be hit harder than others. "California, and in particular the Columbia Basin, doesn't have enough dam capacity to hold a seasonal cycle of water," explained Barnett. "When you change the seasonality of how rivers flow you are essentially putting the water runoff all into spring rather than being able to draw it out through summer. When the water comes out all at once there isn't enough capacity to contain it."

For Canada, the study suggests that earlier spring water runoff will threaten agricultural production in the Canadian Prairies. In Europe, climate warming in the Rhine River Basin may reduce peak-demand water availability for industrial applications, agriculture and household uses. Ship transportation, flood protection, hydropower generation and revenue from skiing all could be threatened as a result.

The new study follows on from Barnett's earlier research which showed that vital water resources derived from the Sierra Nevada may suffer a 15- to 30-percent reduction in the 21st century as a result of changes in snowpack runoff. The new study extended these ideas to regions that depend on glacier-derived water for their main dry season water supply. Such regions contrast with those that depend on water derived from snowpack, such as the western U.S., where water supplies are replenished each year. Thus, the researchers warn that "even more serious problems may occur" in glacier dependent regions "because once the glaciers have melted in a warmer world, there will be no replacement for the water they now provide."

It seems that Asia might be at most risk from retreating glaciers. Barnett believes China, India and other parts of Asia will be particularly impacted due to their high populations and the fact that the ice mass in the mountainous area of this region is the third largest on Earth.

In South America, a large part of the population west of the Andes Mountains could be at a similar risk due to shrinking supplies of glacier-derived river water. Glacier-covered areas in Peru (pictured above in 1978 and 2002), have experienced a 25 percent reduction in the past three decades, the study notes, and "at current rates some of the glaciers may disappear in a few decades, if not sooner."

"Climate warming is a certainty in our future and the bottom line in this analysis is that we looked at the impact of the warming and the long-term prognosis is clear and very dire," warned Barnett. "It's especially clear that regions in Asia and South America are headed for a water supply crisis."

Pic courtesy: Professor L. Thompson
Sources: United States Geological Survey, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20051017013054data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Nov 20, 2005, 6:30am

2 November 2005
New Climate Studies Predict Dire Future

Two new studies released this week paint a gloomy picture of a planet changed beyond recognition by the impact of climate change. The first study, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, looked at the likely outcomes if fossil fuels continue to be used as they are now until depleted. Using a coupled climate and carbon cycle model to look at global climate and carbon cycle changes, the researchers found that the earth would warm by an average of 8 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2300. The big increase in temperatures would cause the disappearance of the polar ice caps and sea levels would rise by around 7 meters (22 feet).

Govindasamy Bala, lead author of the study, appearing in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, said that the estimates of temperature rise might be understated. "The temperature estimate is actually conservative because the model didn't take into consideration changing land use such as deforestation and build out of cities into outlying wilderness areas," he said. Bala believes that in the polar regions alone, the temperature could spike more than 20 degrees Celsius, forcing the land in the region to change from ice and tundra to boreal forests.

Some of the uncertainty relates to the degree that soil and living biomass would act as net carbon sinks. While they can extract a significant amount of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, the real scenario might be quite different. "The land ecosystem would not take up as much carbon dioxide as the model assumes," Bala said. "In fact in the model, it takes up much more carbon than it would in the real world because the model did not have nitrogen/nutrient limitations to uptake. We also didn't take into account land use changes, such as the clearing of forests."

The oceans don't fare any better in the new model, with predictions that about 80 percent of carbon dioxide will end up in the oceans, making them more acidic. The rise in temperature of the oceans coupled with the increased acidity would be especially harmful to marine organisms with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate organisms, such as coral, serve as climate-stabilizers, Bala explained. When the organisms die, their shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The extinction of these climate-stabilizing marine organisms could further exacerbate the problems already predicted.

Bala has little time for climate change skeptics. "Even if people don't believe in it today, the evidence will be there in 20 years," he said. "These are long-term problems." He said the 2003 European heat wave and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season were examples of extreme climate change. "We definitely know we are going to warm over the next 300 years," he concluded. "In reality, we may be worse off than we predict."

The second study, from the Harvard Medical School, looked at how climate change might affect the health of humans and ecosystems, and the economic impact these changes might have. The study was funded by reinsurance giant Swiss Re, who believe that the insurance industry will be a key player in absorbing risk and helping society and business to adapt.

The study's lead author, Dr. Paul Epstein, believes that climate change will have profound effects on health. "We found that impacts of climate change are likely to lead to ramifications that overlap in several areas including our health, our economy and the natural systems on which we depend. Analysis of the potential ripple effects stemming from an unstable climate shows the need for more sustainable practices to safeguard and insure a healthy future," he said.

Epstein's report contains 10 case studies that outline current effects of climate change with regard to infectious diseases such as malaria, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and asthma; extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods; and ecosystems such as forests, agriculture, marine habitat and water. Economic implications as well as possible near-future impacts are projected for each case. The study shows that warming and extreme weather affect the breeding and range of disease vectors such as mosquitoes responsible for malaria, which currently kills 3,000 African children a day, and West Nile virus, which cost the U.S. $500 million in 1999. Lyme disease, the most widespread vector-borne disease, is currently increasing in North America as winters warm and ticks proliferate. The study notes that the area suitable for tick habitat will increase by 213 percent by the 2080s. The report also finds that ragweed pollen growth, stimulated by increasing levels of carbon dioxide, may be contributing to the rising incidence of asthma.

The study was co-sponsored by the United Nations Development Program, an organization concerned that the effects of climate change will be felt most by those in developing nations. "While developed nations are not immune to the impacts of climate change, those populations that are already struggling with myriad social challenges will bear the greatest brunt of climate change," said UN Environment Program Manager Dr. Charles McNeill.

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Harvard Medical School

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 16, 2005, 8:19am

2005 hottest year ever in Australia

*
* Email
* Print
* Normal font
* Large font

December 16, 2005 - 6:44PM

After drought, cyclones and heatwaves, 2005 was on Friday officially declared Australia's hottest year on record.

By the end of December 2005, it is also expected to be the second warmest year globally after 1998, despite the absence of a strong El Nino.

At a conference in Sydney on Friday, experts gathered to discuss new figures released by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the implications of the most scorching year in Australia since the Bureau of Meteorology began keeping records in 1910.

The director of the bureau's Natural Climate Centre, Michael Coughlin, said this year was confirmation the world was getting warmer.

"When viewed from a long-term perspective, 2005 and the preceding decade have seen the warmest period that the earth has experienced for several thousand years," Dr Coughlin said.

He said around 97 per cent of Australia experienced above-average temperatures during the year.

In the January-May period, the hottest temperature maximums on record were exacerbated by dry conditions, with April recorded as the warmest month of the year, Dr Coughlin said.

Australia-wide temperatures during the first five months of 2005 were 1.75 degrees Celsius above normal, surpassing the previous record by 0.57 degrees Celsius.

Dr Coughlin said the trend could be explained only by human activity, including increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

"The general consensus ... is that there is an element of human activity in there and they can't explain the increase in temperatures without it," he said.

"The computer modelling of it, if you don't put the human activity in there, you don't get the increase in temperatures."

But the WMO report also reveals humans may pay an even heavier price for their activity, as the rates of catastrophic storms and disease increase with the heat.

Author of Australia's Natural Disasters, Richard Whitaker, said storms similar to Hurricane Katrina, which struck the US this year and killed at least 1,300 people, could be just around the corner for Australia.

"The rarity of severe cyclones in Queensland in recent history has resulted in a general complacency and an assumption that we're unlikely to see a repetition of cyclones like Althea that hit Townsville in 1971 within our lifetime," Dr Whitaker said.

(The category-four Althea, which killed three people, packed winds gusts of up to 233 kmh. Property damage was estimated at $115 million.)

But climate change is likely to increase the severity of extreme weather in Australia, in particular Queensland, he said.

Dr Rosalie Woodruff, from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, warned that heatwaves, which are likely to rise, put older people at higher risk and affect our lifestyle.

But she said all Australians could be at greater risk of disease resulting from mosquito-borne diseases such as Dengue Fever, Malaria, Ross River Fever as well as food and water-borne illnesses.

"It makes a difference if we act now ... if we don't, we could pay the price with our health in the future," Dr Woodruff said.

AAP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/2005....4703604169.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 16, 2005, 8:36am

2005 warmest on record in north
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

We're right, the sceptics are wrong
Dr David Viner
This year has been the warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they add.

Ocean temperatures recorded in the Northern Hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record.

The researchers, from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia, say this is more evidence for the reality of human-induced global warming.

Their data show that the average temperature during 2005 in the Northern Hemisphere is 0.65C above the average for 1961-1990, a conventional baseline against which scientists compare temperatures.

The global increase is 0.48C, making 2005 the second warmest year on record behind 1998, though the 1998 figure was inflated by strong El Nino conditions.

The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the south, scientists believe, because a greater proportion of it is land, which responds faster to atmospheric conditions than the ocean.

Northern Hemisphere temperatures are now about 0.4C higher than a decade ago.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said Dr David Viner, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Error bar

No measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate, and Dr Viner believes the team's calculations are subject to an error of about plus or minus 0.1C.

However, he says, the long-term trend is clearly upwards - rapidly over the last decade - indicating the reality of human-induced global warming.

"We're right, the sceptics are wrong," he told the BBC News website.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis, and consequently increasing temperatures."

However, Fred Singer from the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Washington DC, a centre of the "climate sceptics" community, disputed this interpretation.

"If indeed 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860, all this proves is that 2005 is the warmest northern hemisphere year since 1860," he told the BBC News website.

"It doesn't prove anything else, and certainly cannot be used by itself to prove that the cause of warming is the emission of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a more subtle examination to know how much of warming is due to man-made causes - there must be some - and how much is down to natural causes."

Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm

Published: 2005/12/15 16:06:22 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 17, 2005, 8:30am

17 November 2005
Grim Future For Global Water Resources

Two new studies in Nature predict major disruptions to the world's supplies of fresh water. While some areas will become drier, others will receive much more rainfall, and others will be unable to cope with the run-off from previously ice-bound catchment areas.



The first study, from the United States Geological Survey, looks at global shifts in water availability using stream-flow measurement archives from 165 locations around the world and an ensemble of global climate models.

While water availability is directly related to climate, there is no simple relationship for all regions between future temperatures and future water resources. Some regions may experience increases in precipitation and run-off while other regions may experience decreases.

By the year 2050, the models predict 10 to 40 percent increases in runoff in eastern equatorial Africa, the La Plata basin and high latitude North America and Eurasia. Decreases of 10 to 30 percent in runoff are predicted in southern Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and mid-latitude western North America.

"A warmer atmosphere can carry more water. So, warmer winds can deliver more water to a region, but they can also take more away. This give-and-take plays out differently in different parts of the world, causing decreases in water supply here, and increases there," explained Christopher Milly, lead author of the study. The study concludes by warning that changes in sustainable water availability could have considerable regional-scale consequences for economies as well as ecosystems.

The second study, conducted by researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, examined the impact that shrinking glaciers and disappearing snow areas will have on fresh water supplies, concluding that the ensuing water shortages will impact millions of people around the world.

The study says that the forces driving these changes - described as "greenhouse physics" - show that in a warming climate more water will fall in the form of rain rather than snow, filling reservoirs to capacity earlier than normal. Additionally, a warming climate will result in snow melting earlier in the year, disrupting the traditional timetable of run-off streams. These changes mean less snow accumulation in the winter and earlier snow-derived water run-off in the spring, challenging the capacities of existing water reservoirs. Water shortages will occur in areas where reservoir capacity cannot hold the increased run-off.

Researcher Tim Barnett said some areas will be hit harder than others. "California, and in particular the Columbia Basin, doesn't have enough dam capacity to hold a seasonal cycle of water," explained Barnett. "When you change the seasonality of how rivers flow you are essentially putting the water runoff all into spring rather than being able to draw it out through summer. When the water comes out all at once there isn't enough capacity to contain it."

For Canada, the study suggests that earlier spring water runoff will threaten agricultural production in the Canadian Prairies. In Europe, climate warming in the Rhine River Basin may reduce peak-demand water availability for industrial applications, agriculture and household uses. Ship transportation, flood protection, hydropower generation and revenue from skiing all could be threatened as a result.

The new study follows on from Barnett's earlier research which showed that vital water resources derived from the Sierra Nevada may suffer a 15- to 30-percent reduction in the 21st century as a result of changes in snowpack runoff. The new study extended these ideas to regions that depend on glacier-derived water for their main dry season water supply. Such regions contrast with those that depend on water derived from snowpack, such as the western U.S., where water supplies are replenished each year. Thus, the researchers warn that "even more serious problems may occur" in glacier dependent regions "because once the glaciers have melted in a warmer world, there will be no replacement for the water they now provide."

It seems that Asia might be at most risk from retreating glaciers. Barnett believes China, India and other parts of Asia will be particularly impacted due to their high populations and the fact that the ice mass in the mountainous area of this region is the third largest on Earth.

In South America, a large part of the population west of the Andes Mountains could be at a similar risk due to shrinking supplies of glacier-derived river water. Glacier-covered areas in Peru (pictured above in 1978 and 2002), have experienced a 25 percent reduction in the past three decades, the study notes, and "at current rates some of the glaciers may disappear in a few decades, if not sooner."

"Climate warming is a certainty in our future and the bottom line in this analysis is that we looked at the impact of the warming and the long-term prognosis is clear and very dire," warned Barnett. "It's especially clear that regions in Asia and South America are headed for a water supply crisis."

Pic courtesy: Professor L. Thompson
Sources: United States Geological Survey, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 17, 2005, 8:31am

29 November 2005
Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Rutgers University scientists, reporting in the journal Science, say that global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and warming from human activities appears to be the culprit. The speed of the rise today is two millimeters per year, compared to one millimeter annually for the past several thousand years. While the figures may not sound dramatic, it seemingly confirms scientific concerns of acceleration in global warming.

The findings are based on drilling studies along the New Jersey coast, tidal gauges and satellite images. They establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago. "With solid historical data, we know it is definitely a recent phenomenon," said Rutgers researcher Kenneth G. Miller. "The main thing that's changed since the 19th century and the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," he added.

Interestingly, the findings by Miller's team argue against some widely held tenets of geological science. Miller claims, for example, that ocean heights 100 million years ago and earlier were 150 to 200 meters lower than scientists had previously thought. Changes at these levels can only be caused by the Earth's crust shifting on the ocean floor. Miller's findings, therefore, imply less ocean-crust production than scientists had widely assumed.

During the last days of the dinosaurs (Late Cretaceous), frequent sea-level fluctuations of tens of meters suggest that the Earth was not always ice-free as previously assumed. Miller claims that ice-volume changes are the only way that sea levels could change at these rates and levels. This suggests small- to medium-sized but short-lived ice sheets in the Antarctic region, and casts doubt whether any of the Earth's warmer eras were fully ice-free.

Source: Rutgers University

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 17, 2005, 8:31am

18 October 2005
Mountains Creating Atmospheric Hotspots

Wind gusts that blow over mountains and hills can create hotspots high in the atmosphere and significantly affect regional air temperatures, say researchers writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics. Their study reports that such winds can create high-frequency acoustic waves that can stimulate a 1,000-degree Celsius spike in the thermosphere at altitudes of 200-300 kilometers.

Studies made previously in the Andes Mountains had found that the atmosphere directly above some peaks was approximately 100 degrees Celsius hotter than in nearby regions and that the difference occasionally reached as much as 400 degrees Celsius. The researchers said that similar effects had been observed over the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.

The researchers - Richard Walterscheid and Michael Hickey - used a model of the interaction between rough terrain and wind eddies to suggest that high winds may represent a previously unknown source of acoustic waves in the environment. The authors speculate that the waves can heat the atmosphere and could account for the unusual and unexplained high-altitude background heating seen above the mountainous landscape in parts of South America. "We show that that the acoustic waves generated by gusty flow over rough terrain might be a significant source of heating in the upper atmosphere," Hickey said. "These mysterious so-called 'hotspots' observed above the Andes Mountains could be explained by such acoustic wave heating."

The study suggests that moderately strong winds, reaching speeds of 10 meters per second, can generate wave amplitudes of nearly four meters per second above rough terrain. In addition, the authors found that steeply sloping terrain further enhanced the waves, which are generated by rapid variations in the up-and-down turbulence in the air. Wider hills and those spaced further apart can also have a similar wave- generating effect.

The researchers note that there are very few detailed field studies of wind field effects over hills and mountains but that previous research indicates that even weak interactions from acoustic waves can produce significant temperature effects in the atmosphere.

Source: American Geophysical Union

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 30, 2005, 2:11pm


Record 27th storm brews in Atlantic
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Miami

December 31, 2005


ANOTHER tropical storm formed in the Atlantic overnight, one month after the official end of the year's record-smashing hurricane season, forecasters said.
Tropical Storm Zeta developed in the eastern Atlantic, about 1,600km south-southwest of the Azores, the Miami-based National Hurricane Centre reported.

The extended hurricane season in the Atlantic has broken several records, with 27 tropical storms, 14 of which became hurricanes.

For the first time since authorities started keeping tabs in 1851, three hurricanes ranked at the topmost category five on the Saffir-Simpson intensity scale, with sustained winds of 280 km/h.

One of those, Wilma, which hit Florida in October, became the most intense Atlantic hurricane ever, with its central pressure falling to 882 millibars.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially runs from June 1 to November 30, and it is rare for cyclones to form after that.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17698620-23109,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 31, 2005, 1:25am

Climate Shock: We're on Thin Ice
By Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Review

Friday 30 December 2005

Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains
By Mark Bowen
Henry Holt, 2005

"In Sanskrit, Himalaya means 'abode of snow,' but as crops and people die from lack of water while watching the highest mountains on Earth turn from white to black, that name may soon seem grotesquely inappropriate."
-- Mark Bowen, Thin Ice

Climate shock comes from the realization that climate change is not only real, but huge; it is not only huge, but it is now; and it will affect your life very shortly. Not your grandchildren's lives. Not your children's lives. Your life. Soon - if it hasn't already.

If you have not experienced climate shock yet, you will when you read Thin Ice by Mark Bowen. Thin Ice is the story of the scientific team from Ohio State University, led by researcher Lonnie Thompson, that has spent the last two decades drilling ice cores in tropical mountain glaciers. Their aim is to retrieve information about climate history from the ice, but there has been a race against time as these glaciers melt, making new history.

Thin Ice is an exciting adventure story. The logistics of transporting the scientists and their drilling equipment into the most inaccessible places on Earth bring hair-raising tales. The team members struggle with altitude sickness, windstorms destroy the solar panels that power their drill, crampons get stuck in ladders deployed over widening crevasses, and the crew tries to float ice core samples off the mountain with a hot-air balloon.

The scientists are awed by their surroundings as they camp for weeks at a time on the top of the world, absorbing "the brown earth and the blue sky and the white ice..." until it seeps into their skins and they bond emotionally with the mountains. Bowen quotes researcher Mary Davis saying that she has a "soft spot" for the Dunde Ice Cap in China's Qilian Shan mountain range. Drilling engineer and ice physicist Bruce Koci confesses to Bowen that it is not just a job for him, it is about "being out there," and he would do it even if he didn't get paid.

The scientific detective work is just as thrilling. Thompson's team has made a number of surprising additions to climate theory and shaken some deeply held establishment views. One surprise was the discovery that a few of the mountain ice cores went as far back in time as any yet recovered from the polar regions. Why? Because when ice gets thick enough, as it does at the poles, pressure and temperature build up, and the ice actually starts to melt from the bottom, destroying the sediment layers and air bubbles that yield all the historical information. But tropical mountains have only scant annual precipitation, so the ice layers are thin, making a longer time-horizon possible. Hence the book's title, Thin Ice.

Another surprising result is some convincing evidence that the Gulf Stream and African currents that help to warm northern Europe are a less powerful influence on climate than previously thought. The climate change horror flick, "The Day After Tomorrow," was based on this "thermohaline convection theory" that says melting ice could disrupt the flow of the warming current and actually cause Europe and New York City to freeze (though not nearly so fast as in the movie).

Thompson's work shows that tropical influences, particularly the El Niño and monsoon cycles (which are related), are the bigger drivers of climate change. This suggests that in the future, the Earth's climate may resemble what we see in El Niño years, but much more extreme. Depending on where you are, your climate shock could show up as either flood or drought or both in rapid succession - a permanent El Niño from Hell.

My own climate shock came in 2002 when the 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire raged through the Kalmiopsis Wilderness in southwest Oregon. I sat in my yard and watched a huge mushroom cloud of smoke boil up out of the wilderness. A freak wind was blowing from the east, full of dry, hot, desert air that pumped up the fire like a bellows. The Kalmiopsis was a place that I deeply loved and it will never be the same again - not just in my lifetime, but forever. Climate change is likely to favor new growth of chaparral and brush over the kind of deep fir and pine forests that got their start in a cooler age.

Gulf Coast residents got their climate shock this past hurricane season as warming oceans spawned the strongest storms on record. Alaska natives are getting their climate shock as retreating sea ice ruins their hunting, and melting permafrost topples their homes. Pacific Islanders are getting it too as their atolls flood and they flee to higher ground. And this is just the very beginning.

Trying to anticipate the climates of the future is impossible without understanding those of the past, yet as Bowen conveys in this book, the past is extremely complicated and hard for someone who is not a climate researcher to fully understand. Given the difficulties, Bowen does a remarkable job both of explaining it and keeping the story interesting and fast-paced. But for a little help getting a better grasp on Earth's history and the timescales involved, I turned to a 1991 book by scientist James Lovelock called Healing Gaia.

Lovelock believes that the best way to think about the Earth is to see it as an organism that goes through phases of sickness and health, or instability followed by equilibrium. Earth's medical history is a long story, for she is an older lady. Her life is now at least 3.5 billion years old.

Conditions change on Earth, and one is that the sun has grown hotter. For most of the age of mammals (the age that followed the dinosaurs and their asteroid demise) the Earth was warm and no ice formed at the poles. But as the sun grew ever hotter, by about 2 million years ago, polar ice caps formed and the Pleistocene began - the ice ages. This sounds odd, but Lovelock explains it: the Earth began to pull more CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in rocks and plants. Less CO2 in the atmosphere lessened the greenhouse effect and temperatures dropped. But because of cyclical changes in Earth's orbit over time, the ice ages have see-sawed back and forth between glacial and interglacial in a series of 100,000-year cycles. A system with this much dynamism is prone to getting knocked off balance, and there is little doubt that that is what is happening now: climate shock.

A funny thing happened 2 million years ago on the way to the ice ages. The ice caps sucked moisture from the African forests, which withered and withdrew from the plains. An arboreal ape came down from the trees and began to make tools and lose its hair. When its descendants multiplied and started to burn fossil fuels, they became a fever-inducing planetary infection. They (we) are the cause of climate shock.

Thin Ice is really the story of the "planetary physicians," as Lovelock calls them - the scientists like Lonnie Thompson who have devoted their careers to taking the planet's temperature. And now the world is getting so warm that anyone can hold a hand to the patient's forehead and get a sense of what is happening.

Besides being a physics PhD from MIT, Thin Ice author Mark Bowen is also an avid recreational climber. He was able to add to his story of scientific discovery the eyewitness accounts from climbers all over the world of rapid ice-melting over the last ten years. A glacier that was a stone's throw from Sir Edmund Hilary's first camp on Mt. Everest has retreated three miles since Hilary's 1953 historic ascent.

An international commission predicts that there is a high likelihood that all of the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. The Himalaya will turn black, and the Ganges and other rivers that flow from it will dry to seasonal streams. The 500 million people in India who depend on water from these rivers will have no other source. As mountain glaciers and snow packs melt everywhere, China, the Andes and California will face the same climate shock - no water.

Meanwhile, the melting ice will raise the seas. Lonnie Thompson and other researchers are discovering that once glaciers start to melt, they can melt all the way to bedrock very rapidly. If all of the Earth's mountain glaciers were to melt, it would raise the sea level by a foot and a half and that would be the end of places like Bangladesh and Louisiana's bayou country. But the polar ice caps are showing the same tendency for rapid melting, and a mere two degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature could be enough to cause a complete disintegration. Sea levels could start rising by 3 feet every 20 years. We will have to act quickly and drastically to avert this inundation.

Reading Thin Ice and exposing yourself to climate shock could help prepare you for your new role in the greenhouse world. We will need more planetary physicians to diagnose and prescribe, and there will also be a need for planetary nurses, orderlies and volunteers to pitch in around the clock to keep the dear old lady alive. What does this mean? Probably it will mean changing everything about the way we live, starting by reducing our fossil fuel consumption now.

But how on Earth can we train ourselves to change everything, all at once?

Let's face it: We are more like monkeys than like gods, and we learn best by imitating whatever we think is admirable. For most of our evolutionary history we were a prey species - a scruffy primate just recently evolved from a rodent. And so, in our hominid phase we have fancied ourselves a glorious predator, in the same league with the lion and the eagle. In the future, if we want to survive, we will become symbionts - life forms that live in partnership with others. We may become like the rhinoceros bird that pecks parasitic ticks (and blood) from the rhino's back and warns it of approaching danger.

As successful symbionts we will adapt to the warmer Earth by living modestly and learning all the tricks and trades for storing carbon away in forests, fields, soils and rocks. We'll blow sweet breezes on the lady's brow, soothe her hot flashes, and cool the Earth again. In return, if luck and tides are with us, she will continue to sustain us until our time on Earth is done.

Kelpie Wilson is the t r u t h o u t environment editor. She is also a mechanical engineer and does technical writing for the solar power industry. She has been a leader in the campaign to protect ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest and was the executive director of the Siskiyou Regional Education Project. Her first novel, Primal Tears, has been published by North Atlantic Books.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/123005EA.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Dec 31, 2005, 6:53am

Not quite the world as we know it:

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 3, 2006, 10:37am

It is my view that seismic anomalies are as much a part of the jigsaw of the climate collapse as are the oddities in the weather. Witness the recent quakes adjacent the South Sandwich Islands (7.3) and Fiji (7.1). Another relevant feature is an increase in volcanic activity in volcanoes such as Mount St Helens. The curiosity with this particular volcano is the source of the lava which continues to flow at the rate of 200 cu. yards per minute: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/30/st.helens.ap/index.html

From my observations we are due for another significant seismic event affecting humanity in the very near future. Whether this event overshadows the Iranian shenanigans or any further unscheduled hurricanes only time will tell.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 7, 2006, 12:31pm

Past gives clue to climate impact
A rapid rise in global temperature 55 million years ago caused major disruption to ocean currents, new research shows.

Scientists found that the disruption took 140,000 years to reverse.

Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists say the phenomenon may be important for understanding the impact of present day climate warming.

Recent research suggests north Atlantic currents which bring heat to northern Europe may be weakening.

The new study, by Flavia Nunes and Richard Norris from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, looked at tiny fossil animals called foraminifera in marine sediments from 14 ocean-floor locations around the world.

Analysing the ratios of two isotopes of carbon in the shells of these foraminifera allowed them to determine ocean current patterns at the time the creatures died.

Time of change

The time in question was an extraordinary epoch in Earth history - the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when the global average temperature rose by anything between four and seven Celsius in a few thousand years.

It has been cited as the reason for the spread of mammals around the world, and for the evolution of bats.


Computer models of modern climate suggest that temperature changes could affect ocean currents, and recent research has found indications that it is happening now in the north Atlantic.

But the disruption 55 million years ago took in more than a single ocean; the entire global system appears to have altered course.

Before the PETM, Nunes and Norris found, surface waters sank principally in the southern hemisphere, with deep currents then flowing north.

As temperatures rose, this pattern abruptly reversed. The new north-to-south system endured for 40,000 years, and currents took a further 100,000 to return to their previous polarity.

The reason why temperatures shot up during the PETM are unclear; but carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere appear to have been extremely high, about a thousand times higher than currently.

The suspicion is that some kind of feedback mechanism may have been involved.

One theory is that an initial warming changed the distribution of heat in the oceans so that deposits of gas hydrates on the sea floor were released, with carbon dioxide and methane rising to the surface and entering the atmosphere, causing further greenhouse warming.

The new research provides some support for this theory, as well as demonstrating that abrupt temperature changes can have a long-term impact on ocean currents which are, as the Gulf Stream demonstrates, intimately tied to weather systems.

Some researchers have raised concern that release of gas hydrates could contribute to present-day global warming.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4582872.stm

Published: 2006/01/05 09:04:33 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2006, 7:25am

Global Warming, Yes - But Is It A 'Normal' Cycle?
Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural'

By Brendan O'Keefe
The Australian
1-8-5

Hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years.

Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University and leading climate change sceptic, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change.

He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment".

Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation".

Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities".

But other leading scientists, who blame human activity for climate change, say the "denialists" are a one-to-99 minority.

Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said: "There is no debate. The debate is over." The evidence that human activity had increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to natural warming, was "overwhelming", he said.

For scientist and University of Adelaide academic Tim Flannery there was also no argument: humans had turned up the heating and only humans could keep a lid on it. The argument that human activity did not contribute to global warming was "not a credible hypothesis to build policy on", he said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_pa
ge/0,5744,17752119%255E601,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2006, 7:40am

6 December 2005
Arctic Soil Carbon Vastly Underestimated

It seems that current efforts to understand the effects of carbon on climate warming could be a waste of time as estimates of Arctic soil carbon appear to be hugely underestimated. New University of Washington research shows that the estimate of how much soil carbon is available in the high Arctic to be released into the atmosphere could be out of whack by a factor of one hundred or more.

The three year study of soils in northwest Greenland found that a key previous study greatly underestimated the organic carbon stored in the soil because the researchers only looked at the top 10 inches of soil. The earlier study, reported in 1992, estimated nearly 1 billion metric tons of organic carbon in the soil of the polar semi-desert, a 623,000-square-mile treeless Arctic region that is 20 - 80 percent covered by grasses, shrubs and other small plants. That research also estimated about 17 million metric tons of carbon was sequestered in the soil of the adjacent polar desert, a 525,000-square-mile area where only 10 percent or less of the landscape is plant covered.

But the new study made significantly different findings. University of Washington (UW) researcher Jennifer Horwath said the team dug substantially deeper - in some instances more than 3 feet down - and found significantly more carbon. Horwath's astonishing conclusion was that the polar semi-desert contains more than 8.7 billion metric tons of carbon, and the polar desert contains more than 2.1 billion metric tons. "In the polar semi-desert, I found nearly nine times more carbon than was previously reported," she said. "In the polar desert, I'm finding 125 times more carbon." The new findings were presented today at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting. The work is part of a broader study of carbon content of the water, plants and soil of the high Arctic region being conducted by the University of Alaska.

Horwath says the findings are significant because the Arctic is showing greater effects from global climate change than anywhere else. "We already know the Arctic climate is warming, and as it warms the depth of the permafrost is lowered. As that happens, more carbon becomes active and can be converted to carbon dioxide, one of the most abundant greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," she explained.

She added that the carbon estimate discrepancy may invalidate many computer models used to predict future climate trends. "The effects of climate change are really hard to predict, and it's that much harder if you don't have an accurate picture of what is actually happening now," said concluded.

Source: University of Washington

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20051106030556data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 9, 2006, 7:42am

20 December 2005
Arctic Permafrost Not So Permanent

Regions containing permafrost within the top 11 feet of soil could decrease by as much as 90% across the Arctic over the next century, based on simulations by the NCAR Community Climate System Model. Shown are areas with near-surface permafrost in the CCSM simulations for 1980-1999 (light blue) and 2080-2099 (dark blue). The latter projection is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's A1B emissions scenario, often called the 'business as usual' scenario. Earth's warming climate looks like it could thaw 90 percent of the perennially frozen soil across the Arctic by 2100, altering ecosystems and damaging infrastructure across Canada, Alaska, and Russia. Additionally, the effects of so much carbon being released into the atmosphere could massively increase the rate of climate change. These dire predictions, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), appear in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.



NCAR's study, using what it calls the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), is the first to examine the state of permafrost in a global model that includes interactions among the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice as well as a soil model that depicts freezing and thawing. "People have used models to study permafrost before, but not within a fully interactive climate system model," says NCAR's David Lawrence, the lead author of the study.

Lawrence explained that about a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost (soil that remains below 32 degrees Fahrenheit for at least two years). Permafrost is typically characterized by an active surface layer, extending anywhere from a few centimeters to several meters deep, which thaws during the summer and refreezes during the winter. The deeper permafrost layer remains frozen. The active layer responds to changes in climate, expanding downward as surface air temperatures rise. Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century.

The effects of recent warming and degraded sections of permafrost can be seen across central Alaska, where pockets of soil collapse as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests" - trees that lean at wild angles. In Siberia, some industrial facilities have reported significant damage.

While the damage to wilderness areas and infrastructure is bad enough, the effects from the water run-off and freed carbon could be even more severe. "Thawing permafrost could send considerable amounts of water to the oceans," said co-researcher Andrew Slater, who notes that runoff to the Arctic has increased about 7 percent since the 1930s. It's possible that runoff could grow by another 28 percent by the year 2100. That increase includes contributions from enhanced rainfall and snowfall as well as the water from ice melting within soil.

The biggest effect on climate, however, could come from the emissions of greenhouse gases from thawing soils. The permafrost may hold 30 percent or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide and as the permafrost thaws, it could lead to large-scale emissions of methane or carbon dioxide far beyond those produced by fossil fuels. "There's a lot of carbon stored in the soil," concluded Lawrence. "If the permafrost does thaw, as our model predicts, it could have a major influence on climate." Lawrence and others are now working to develop a more advanced climate model that includes carbon factors.

Source: National Center for Atmospheric Research
Graphic courtesy NCAR/David Lawrence

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20051120041435data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 12, 2006, 12:13am

Increasing vulcanism:

Volcanoes At Both Poles Erupting Now

Surfing The Apocalypse
Network MercoPress.com
1-11-6

Mount Belinda on Montagu Island in the South Sandwich Islands is erupting, reports the South Georgia government.

The Royal Air Force plans to fly a maritime patrol to the remote island from the Falkland Islands as soon as the weather allows to investigate the scale of the eruption.

A representative of the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands plans to go on the flight to see first hand the effects of the volcano, including changes to the coastline in the areas in which seabirds normally breed. From the satellite images it seems that the major colonies are unaffected as they lie on the far side of the island.

The four and a half thousand foot mountain was thought to be inactive until RAF patrols and satellite imaging four years ago showed low level activity, with ash staining the snow covered mountain top. For the past two years the volcano has been erupting more forcefully, and a recent satellite image shows a large, fast moving lava flow, 90 meters wide, which is reported to be adding 50 acres a month to the island.

The South Sandwich Islands are made up of a volcanic arc of eleven islands in the Weddell Sea, and together with South Georgia, they form one of the British Overseas Territories.

http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=7037


Observatory Confirms Eruption Of Augustine Volcano

KTVA Staff - Alaska
1-11-6

The Alaska Volcano Observatory says Mount Augustine Volcano has erupted. Geologist Jennifer Adleman says an ash cloud has been confirmed.

The observatory estimates the cloud is about 30-thousand feet high.

Residents of Clam Gulch on the Kenai Peninsula told the observatory they had spotted ash in their community. Adleman says she's not sure if ash was spotted in the air or on the ground.

A pair of explosions this morning shortly before five a.m. marked the onset of the eruption.

The volcano is 75 miles southwest of Homer and about 180 miles southwest of Anchorage.

The observatory says it plans flights today to gain more information on the kinds of gasses that the mountain expelled.

The four-thousand-134-foot volcano last erupted in 19-86. The explosions today were preceded by increased earthquake activity last night.

That prompted the observatory to upgrade the level of concern code from yellow to orange. With the explosions, the code is now red.

http://www.ktva.com/topstory/ci_3392670

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 17, 2006, 3:29pm

Environment In Crisis - 'We Are Past The Point Of No Return'

By Michael McCarthy
Environment Editor - UK Times
1-16-6

Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.



In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..."

He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords."

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry.

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

ROUGH GUIDE TO A PLANET IN JEOPARDY

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2 February, price £16.99

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jan 17, 2006, 3:30pm

Global Warming To Speed Up As Co2 Levels Jump Global Warming To Speed Up As Carbon Levels Show Sharp Rise

By Geoffrey Lean
Environment Editor - UK Independent
1-16-6

Global warming is set to accelerate alarmingly because of a sharp jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Preliminary figures, exclusively obtained by The Independent on Sunday, show that levels of the gas - the main cause of climate change - have risen abruptly in the past four years. Scientists fear that warming is entering a new phase, and may accelerate further.

But a summit of the most polluting countries, convened by the Bush administration, last week refused to set targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. Set up in competition to the Kyoto Protocol, the summit, held in Sydney and attended by Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea as well as the United States, instead pledged to develop cleaner technologies - which some experts believe will not arrive in time.

The climb in carbon dioxide content showed up in readings from the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken at the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The measurements have been taken regularly since 1958 in the 11,400ft peak's pristine conditions, 2,000 miles from the nearest landmass and protected by unusual climatic conditions from the pollution of Hawaii, two miles below.

Through most of the past half-century, levels of the gas rose by an average of 1.3 parts per million a year; in the late 1990s, this figure rose to 1.6 ppm, and again to 2ppm in 2002 and 2003. But unpublished figures for the first 10 months of this year show a rise of 2.2ppm.

Scientists believe this may be the first evidence that climate change is starting to produce itself, as rising temperatures so alter natural systems that the Earth itself releases more gas, driving the thermometer ever higher.

Global warming is set to accelerate alarmingly because of a sharp jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Preliminary figures, exclusively obtained by The Independent on Sunday, show that levels of the gas - the main cause of climate change - have risen abruptly in the past four years. Scientists fear that warming is entering a new phase, and may accelerate further.

But a summit of the most polluting countries, convened by the Bush administration, last week refused to set targets for reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. Set up in competition to the Kyoto Protocol, the summit, held in Sydney and attended by Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea as well as the United States, instead pledged to develop cleaner technologies - which some experts believe will not arrive in time.

The climb in carbon dioxide content showed up in readings from the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken at the summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The measurements have been taken regularly since 1958 in the 11,400ft peak's pristine conditions, 2,000 miles from the nearest landmass and protected by unusual climatic conditions from the pollution of Hawaii, two miles below.

Through most of the past half-century, levels of the gas rose by an average of 1.3 parts per million a year; in the late 1990s, this figure rose to 1.6 ppm, and again to 2ppm in 2002 and 2003. But unpublished figures for the first 10 months of this year show a rise of 2.2ppm.

Scientists believe this may be the first evidence that climate change is starting to produce itself, as rising temperatures so alter natural systems that the Earth itself releases more gas, driving the thermometer ever higher.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338689.ece

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2006, 9:47am

Climate report: the main points
A major new report commissioned by the UK government suggests it is unlikely that "dangerous" climate change can be avoided.

The BBC News website here dissects the main findings from the 406-page report, which collates evidence presented at an international scientific conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.

Major consequences of rising temperatures

It is likely that sea levels globally will rise as the climate warms, the report concludes.

Thermal expansion of water is already believed to be raising sea levels by around 1.8cm per decade; but the extent of that rise would be considerably greater if the Earth's major ice sheets, in Greenland and Antarctica, were to melt.

On Greenland, it concludes: "Local warming of more than 2.7C would cause the ice sheet to contract."

As the Arctic is warming faster than the planetary average, a local warming of 2.7C may equate to a global warming of only about 1.5C, which some climate scientists believe is certainly going to happen whatever policies are now set in train.

There is considerable uncertainty, though, with researchers talking in terms of probabilities and refraining from making a definite prediction.

The majority of Antarctic ice is in the east of the continent and appears secure; it may even thicken.

The west Antarctic sheet, often described in previous assessments as a "slumbering giant", is another matter.

Much of it rests on rock which is below sea level, and recent research suggests that a warming sea may be starting to melt the ice from below.

"These new insights suggest that the issue of the contribution of Antarctica to global sea level rise needs to be reassessed," writes Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey.

"We could characterise the situation as 'a giant awakened'."

It has long been suspected that melting ice in the Arctic region could trigger collapse of the north Atlantic conveyor, sometimes called the Gulf Stream or the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC), the ocean current which brings warm water from the Caribbean to European shores.

Again, the discussion is framed largely in terms of uncertainties and probabilities.

But Michael Schlesinger from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and colleagues caution: "One cannot but be taken by the finding that in the absence of any policy intervention to slow the emission of greenhouse gases, uncertainty in our understanding ... supports a greater than 50% likelihood of an Atlantic THC collapse."

Warming apart, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to rising concentrations in the oceans too.

This will make sea water more acidic; not to anything approaching corrosive levels, but to a degree which could affect marine ecosystems.

The impacts are difficult to predict, say Carol Turley and colleagues from the UK's Plymouth Marine Laboratory; but, they caution: "Such dramatic changes in ocean pH (acidity) have probably not been seen for millions of years of the Earth's history."

Impact on humans and nature

Not surprisingly, the report concludes that impacts will change according to the extent of temperature rise.

"Above a one degree Celsius increase, risks increase significantly, often rapidly for vulnerable ecosystems and species," concludes Bill Hare from the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research in Germany, who produced an overview of more than 70 studies of impacts on water resources, agriculture and wildlife.

"In the one to two degree range, risks across the board increase significantly, and at a regional level are often substantial," he writes.

"Above two degrees the risks increase very substantially, involving potentially large numbers of extinctions or even ecosystem collapses, major increases in hunger and water shortage risks as well as socio-economic damages, particularly in developing countries."

A rise of 2C, the report suggests, will be enough to cause:

* decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
* tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia
* large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification
* up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage
* 97% loss of coral reefs
* total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of polar bear and walrus
* spread of malaria in Africa and north America

Linking temperature rise and carbon emissions

One of the great unknowns in climate science is just how high temperatures will rise for a given atmospheric level of greenhouse gases.

The European Union has set a policy target of preventing a global rise of more than 2C; but precisely what needs to be done to achieve that target in terms of restraining emissions is unclear.

Once again, probabilities and uncertainties are the langauge of the day.

"For achieving the two Celsius target with a probability of more than 60%, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent or below," conclude Michel den Elzen from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and Malte Meinshausen of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"A stabilisation at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent requires global emissions to peak around 2015, followed by substantial overall reductions in the order of 30% to 40% compared to 1990 levels in 2050."

This, various researchers note, should be compared against forecasts from the International Energy Agency and others that the global demand for energy will rise by about 60% by the year 2030.

Can it be done? And how much will it cost?

Technologies do exist, the final section of the report concludes, which can change this picture.

Renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear and "clean coal" are all options which can maintain energy supplies and fuel economic growth while lowering emissions.

The report notes that costs have come down and are expected to fall further, while refraining from giving definitive figures for how much it would cost to adopt these technologies globally.

But will they be adopted?

"The biggest problem does not seem to be the technologies or the costs, but overcoming the many political, social and behavioural barriers to implementing mitigation options," conclude Bert Metz and Detlef van Vuuren of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

"There is a multitude of potential obstacles, ranging from lack of awareness, vested interests, prices not reflecting environmental impacts, cultural and behavioural barriers to change and, in the case of spreading technologies to developing countries, the lack of an effective enabling environment for new investments."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4661830.stm

Published: 2006/01/30 13:03:26 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 2, 2006, 9:48am

Sea level rise 'is accelerating'
There will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges
Dr John Church
Global sea levels could rise by about 30cm during this century if current trends continue, a study warns.

Australian researchers found that sea levels rose by 19.5cm between 1870 and 2004, with accelerated rates in the final 50 years of that period.

The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used data from tide gauges around the world.

The findings fit within predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, projected that the global average sea level would rise by between 9 and 88cm between 1990 and 2100.

In an attempt to reduce the scale of uncertainty in this projection, the Australian researchers have analysed tidal records dating back to 1870.

The data was obtained from locations throughout the globe, although the number of tidal gauges increased and their locations changed over the 130-year period.

These records show that the sea level has risen, and suggest that the rate of rise is increasing.

Over the entire period from 1870 the average rate of rise was 1.44mm per year.

Over the 20th Century it averaged 1.7mm per year; while the figure for the period since 1950 is 1.75mm per year.

Although climate models predict that sea level rise should have accelerated, the scientists behind this study say they are the first to verify the trend using historical data.

Floods and surges

If the acceleration continues at the current rate, the scientists warn that sea levels could rise during this century by between 28 and 34cm.

Dr John Church, a scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation based in Tasmania and an author of the study, said that higher sea levels could have grave effects on some areas.

"It means there will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges," he told the Associated Press.

"It means increased coastal erosion on sandy beaches; we're going to see increased flooding on island nations."

There is now a consensus among climate scientists that rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are the major factor behind rising temperatures.

Increased temperatures can lead to higher sea-levels through several mechanisms including the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water.

Through the 1997 Kyoto protocol, industrialised countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. But the US and Australia have withdrawn from the treaty.

Dr Church urged: ""We do have to reduce our emissions but we also have to recognise climate change is happening, and we have to adapt as well."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4651876.stm

Published: 2006/01/27 02:04:26 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2006, 7:13am

Greenland ice swells ocean rise
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter, St Louis

Greenland's glaciers are sliding towards the sea much faster than previously believed, scientists have told a conference in St Louis, US.

It was thought the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt in about 1,000 years, but the latest evidence suggests that could happen much sooner.

It implies that sea levels will rise a great deal faster as well.

Details of the study, by Nasa and University of Kansas researchers, are also reported in the journal Science.

The comprehensive analysis found that the amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean has doubled in the last five years.

If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, it would raise global sea levels by about 7m.

Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise today is two to three times greater than it was in 1996.

Sleeping giant

"We are concerned because we know that sea levels have been able to rise much faster in the past - 10 times faster. This is a big gorilla. If sea level rise is multiplied by 10 or more, I'm not sure we can deal with that," co-author Eric Rignot, from the US space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, told the BBC News website.

Previous estimates suggested it would take many hundreds of years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt completely. The new data will cut this timescale, but by how much is uncertain.

It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes
Dr Eric Rignot, Nasa
"It depends on how fast the glaciers can go and how sustainable the acceleration can be," said Dr Rignot.

He added: "It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes."

In 1996, Greenland was losing about 100 cubic km per year in mass from its ice sheet. In 2005, this had increased to about 220 cubic km. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about one cubic km of water per year.

Rising surface air-temperatures seem to be behind the increases in glacier speed in the southern half of Greenland since 1996; but the northward spread of warmer temperatures may be responsible for a rapid increase in glacier speed further north after 2000.

Satellite monitoring

Over the past 20 years, the air temperature in south-east Greenland has risen by 3C.

Warmer temperatures cause more surface melt water to reach the base of the ice sheet where it meets the rock. This is thought to serve as a lubricant, easing the glaciers' march to the sea.

The study's results come from satellites that monitor glacier movement from space.

Rignot and colleague Pannir Kanagaratnam, from the University of Kansas, built up a glacier speed map from the data for 2000 and then used measurements from 1996-2005 to determine how glacier velocity had changed in the last decade.

The researchers plan to continue their monitoring of the Greenland glaciers using satellite data.

The Greenland ice sheet covers 1.7 million sq km and is up to 3km thick.

The scientists described their results at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4720536.stm

Published: 2006/02/16 18:58:37 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 17, 2006, 8:31am

A solution - maybe:

Source: Emory University Health Sciences Center

Posted: January 31, 2006
Increasing Plant Enzyme Efficiency May Hold Key To Global Warming

Global warming just may have met its match. In research recently completed at Emory University School of Medicine, scientists have discovered a mutant enzyme that could enable plants to use and convert carbon dioxide more quickly, effectively removing more greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

The findings were published online on January 19 and will appear in the February issue of the journal "Protein Engineering Design and Selection." Ichiro Matsumura, PhD, assistant professor of biochemistry at Emory University School of Medicine, is the senior author and principal investigator. The first author is research specialist Monal R. Parikh.

During photosynthesis, plants, and some bacteria, convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into usable chemical energy. Scientists have long known that this process relies on the enzyme rubulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase, also called RuBisCO. While RuBisCO is the most abundant enzyme in the world, it is also one of the least efficient. As Dr. Matsumura says, "All life pretty much depends on the function on this enzyme. It actually has had billions of years to improve, but remains about a thousand times slower than most other enzymes. Plants have to make tons of it just to stay alive."

RuBisCO's inefficiency limits plant growth and stops organisms from using and assimilating all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since the spread of photosynthesis has not kept pace with the amount of gas in the atmosphere, the gas builds up. The resulting gas buildup is one cause of global warming. A 2004 report by the National Science Foundation estimates that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations remained steady at between 200 and 280 parts per million for thousands of years, but that carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, leading to 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today.

For decades, scientists have struggled to engineer a variant of the enzyme that would more quickly convert carbon dioxide. Their attempts primarily focused on mutating specific amino acids within RuBisCO, and then seeing if the change affected carbon dioxide conversion. Because of RuBisCO's structural complexity, the mutations did not have the desired outcome.

For their own study, Dr. Matsumura and his colleagues decided to use a process called "directed evolution" which involved isolating and randomly mutating genes, and then inserting the mutated genes into bacteria (in this case Escherichia coli, or E. coli). They then screened the resulting mutant proteins for the fastest and most efficient enzymes. "We decided to do what nature does, but at a much faster pace." Dr. Matsumura says. "Essentially we're using evolution as a tool to engineer the protein."

Because E. coli does not normally participate in photosynthesis or carbon dioxide conversion, it does not usually carry the RuBisCO enzyme. In this study, Matsumura's team added the genes encoding RuBisCO and a helper enzyme to E. coli, enabling it to change carbon dioxide into consumable energy. The scientists withheld other nutrients from this genetically modified organism so that it would need RuBisCO and carbon dioxide to survive under these stringent conditions.

They then randomly mutated the RuBisCO gene, and added these mutant genes to the modified E. coli. The fastest growing strains carried mutated RuBisCO genes that produced a larger quantity of the enzyme, leading to faster assimilation of carbon dioxide gas. "These mutations caused a 500 percent increase in RuBisCO expression," Dr. Matsumura says. "We are excited because such large changes could potentially lead to faster plant growth. This results also suggests that the enzyme is evolving in our laboratory in the same way that it did in nature."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092656.htm

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 20, 2006, 8:01am

Earth 'on fast track' to warming
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter, St Louis

Greenhouse gases are being released 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past.

That is the conclusion of scientists who presented results at a conference in St Louis, in the US.

Emissions that caused a global warming episode 55 million years ago were released over 10,000 years.

Burning fossil fuels is likely to release the same amount over the next three centuries, the scientists claim.

Professor James Zachos of the University of California at Santa Cruz studied the period of global warming known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Temperatures shot up by 5C (9F) during this episode, driven by a massive release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

Crossed threshold

By probing sediments on the ocean floor, Professor Zachos was able to determine that about 4.5 trillion tonnes of carbon entered the atmosphere over a period of 10,000 years.

If present trends continue, this is the same amount that will be emitted by burning fossil fuels during the next 300 years, according to the UC Santa Cruz geologist.



The fear for climate scientists is that higher temperatures could slow down ocean mixing, reducing the ocean's capacity to absorb CO2. This could cause "positive feedback", with reduced absorption leaving more CO2 in the air, causing more warming.

"Records of past climate change show that change starts slowly and then accelerates," he said.

"The system crosses some sort of threshold."

On Thursday, researchers unveiled research that Greenland's glaciers were sliding into the sea much faster than they were a decade ago.

Professor Zachos presented his research at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in St Louis.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4727528.stm

Published: 2006/02/18 15:36:08 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 22, 2006, 7:45am

Global warming: Passing the 'tipping point'

by Michael McCarthy, The Independent [London, UK]

Feb. 11, 2006

A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.

Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.

The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century.

At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees above the pre-industrial era -- and worrying signs of climate change, such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more serious.

By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level rise of several meters. Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The Government's conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was to be avoided with "relatively high certainty".

This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms -- or in the jargon, the "equivalent concentration" of CO2 should remain below that level.

The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold.

This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a very senior climate scientist, he said: "I would think it's definitely over 400 -- probably about 420." So we asked one of the world's leading experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2. The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already behind us.

"The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have actually entered a new era -- the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate."

The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature rise]."

Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it."

The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining above 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so.

Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because there is another consideration -- the fact that the "aerosol", or band of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces the warming.

As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out -- and Professor Shine and other scientists accept -- in the event of an industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken together would suddenly be fully felt.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 26, 2006, 9:43am

An interesting scientific paper from the IPCC:

Potential impacts of climate change

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-011/001-011.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 28, 2006, 7:35am

Too hot to handle
Recent efforts to censor Jim Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist, are only the latest. As his message grows more urgent, we ignore him at our peril.

By Bill McKibben | February 5, 2006

JIM HANSEN, the director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a dangerous man. Not a brash man or a rebel-I remember interviewing him many years ago, and when I asked him what he did to relax, he replied, ''mow my lawn." He's spent his whole career on the NASA payroll, but never looked up at the beckoning stars, at least professionally. Instead, from a floor of offices above Tom's Diner, of ''Seinfeld" fame, on New York's Upper West Side, he's fixed an unwavering gaze on our home planet and the narrow envelope of atmosphere that surrounds it.

It's in that process that he's acquired the data, including one of the most comprehensive and accurate temperature records for the entire globe, that makes him so unsafe-data he's repeatedly tried to spread to the world, but always against resistance, mostly from politicians but also from scientists.

The latest dust-up came last week, when The New York Times reported that the public affairs staff at NASA was trying to censor Hansen's contacts with journalists-not to mention postings on his website, his lectures, and his future papers-after he told the American Geophysical Union, in a speech on Dec. 6, that 2005 had been the warmest year on record. Not that they acted out of any untoward motive, NASA officials insist, just to make sure that he wasn't misquoted.

Hansen has had to deliver unpopular news before, and he's always persisted-and this time, as usual, he managed to turn the gag order into a megaphone. In fact, if you follow the thread of the controversies that have marked Hansen's career, you can understand how the idea of global warming first came to light, how it's been resisted, and why we seem now to be entering into the most dangerous era of all, when theory turns ever more quickly into reality.

. . .

In the late 1970s, global warming was something that very few scientists thought about and almost no politicians took seriously. Hansen, however, then a newly minted PhD arriving in New York from the Midwest, had begun to build his first global climate model, an immensely complex computer simulation of the planet's climate that allows its user to, say, add a layer of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and see what happens. What happens, as he put it in a paper in Science, is that the temperature goes up, a lot: He predicted that ''the continuing increase in fossil fuel use would lead to about 4.5-degree Fahrenheit global warming by the end of the twenty-first century."

The incoming Reagan administration, unfortunately, did not want to hear that-and so they cut his funding to the bone, forcing him to lay off most of his NASA staff. Still, he'd raised the issue, gotten it on the front pages of the papers for the first time, and-since he had the best model of the world's climate anywhere-he eventually got a new round of funding.

The next time he had something to say, he didn't choose a scientific journal. It was June 1988, and the country was unusually hot-the Mississippi River was so dry that barges were unable to navigate the shallow waters. A congressional committee asked him to testify, and he did. In his allotted 15 minutes, in his usual mild voice, he predicted that 1988 would set a new global temperature record, and indeed that he was ''99 percent confident" that it was due to the greenhouse effect. As he left the hearing, he told reporters: ''It's time to stop waffling so much and say that the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now."

That sound bite rankled the Republican administration (which tried to edit his further testimony, with about as much success as NASA had last week) but it also angered his scientific peers. He'd broken the scientific code, talked in real-world terms, ''gone beyond the data." Daggers were drawn, and they were used. Mark Bowen, in his fine recent history of climate science, ''Thin Ice" (2005), describes the next meeting of the world's climatologists as a ''get-Hansen session." Scientists, accustomed to publishing in peer-reviewed journals, speak in nuances and caveats. To say ''I'm 99 percent certain" goes against the academic grain.

Hansen, of course, understood this. He's spent his whole career in academic conferences and scientific meetings. But he also knew that the rest of the world-the audience that needed to understand our predicament-doesn't speak that way.

The professional criticism stung him, but it had clearly been worth it. Every newspaper and every newsmagazine published long reports on the subject-within a week, ''greenhouse effect" had gone from a scientific term to a media buzzword. By year's end Time had named ''our endangered earth" its ''planet of the year," and the elder George Bush, running for president, was promising to ''fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect"-an applause line, unfortunately, which didn't lead to much in the way of policy. More importantly, the fear Hansen sparked led to almost bottomless federal research budgets for his fellow scientists, and by 1995 they had concluded he was correct: The planet, said the world's foremost body of climatologists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was heating up and people were the cause.

In the rest of the developed world, that was enough to get policy makers working on projects like the Kyoto Treaty. But here, where all the crucial science had been done, the prospect of grappling with our fossil fuel addiction was simply too daunting for either the Clinton administration, which at least recognized the problem, or the George W. Bush White House, which turned its back. When one Environmental Protection Agency document dared to mention the possibility of a warming planet, Bush dismissed it as a product of ''the bureaucrats."

. . .

And so we go on burning ever more fossil fuel, and the earth keeps getting warmer-as Hansen's monthly monitoring of 10,000 temperature gauges around the planet makes depressingly clear.

But the new high temperature record isn't the real reason Hansen is so agitated right now, nor the reason the Bush administration would like to silence him. Instead, it's the messages about future change that his computer climate models keep spitting out.

Those models reveal a miserable situation at present, but a dire one in the years ahead. In his December speech to the Geophysical Union, he noted that carbon dioxide emissions are ''now surging well above" the point where damage to the planet might be limited. Speaking to a reporter from The Washington Post, he put it bluntly: Having raised the earth's temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last three decades, we're facing another increase of 4 degrees over the next century. That would ''imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." The technical terms for those changes include drought, famine, pestilence, and flood.

''It's not something we can adapt to," he continued. ''We can't let it go on another 10 years like this."

And that's what makes him so dangerous now. He's not just saying that the world is warming. He's not just saying we're the cause. He's saying: We have to stop it now. Not wait a few decades while Exxon Mobil keeps making record profits. Not wait a few decades until there's some painless new technology like hydrogen cars that lets us drive blithely into the future. Not even wait a few years until the current administration can cut and run from Washington.

The president, just this week, said that we've become ''addicted to oil," which is a little as though Abe Lincoln suddenly noticed the South had slaves. Bush's package of fixes-a little money for nuclear, for clean coal, for wind power-goes in the right direction, but so slowly as to be a gesture, not a policy. If we want to keep a semblance of the planet we were born on to, we have to act decisively, expensively, quickly, and now.

You can argue with Hansen if you want. But you better bring a pretty big data set with you. He's been right so far.

Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is the author of ''The End of Nature" and eight other books on environmental topics.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/02/05/too_hot_to_handle/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Feb 28, 2006, 8:03am

Europe's chill linked to disease
By Kate Ravilious

Europe's "Little Ice Age" may have been triggered by the 14th Century Black Death plague, according to a new study.

Pollen and leaf data support the idea that millions of trees sprang up on abandoned farmland, soaking up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

This would have had the effect of cooling the climate, a team from Utrecht University, Netherlands, says.

The Little Ice Age was a period of some 300 years when Europe experienced a dip in average temperatures.

Dr Thomas van Hoof and his colleagues studied pollen grains and leaf remains collected from lake-bed sediments in the southeast Netherlands.

Monitoring the ups and downs in abundance of cereal pollen (like buckwheat) and tree pollen (like birch and oak) enabled them to estimate changes in land-use between AD 1000 and 1500.

Pore clues

The team found an increase in cereal pollen from 1200 onwards (reflecting agricultural expansion), followed by a sudden dive around 1347, linked to the agricultural crisis caused by the arrival of the Black Death, most probably a bacterial disease spread by rat fleas.

This bubonic plague is said to have wiped out over a third of Europe's population.

Counting stomata (pores) on ancient oak leaves provided van Hoof's team with a measure of the fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide for the same period.

This is because leaves absorb carbon dioxide through their stomata, and their density varies as carbon dioxide goes up and down.

"Between AD 1200 to 1300, we see a decrease in stomata and a sharp rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, due to deforestation we think," says Dr van Hoof, whose findings are published in the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.

But after AD 1350, the team found the pattern reversed, suggesting that atmospheric carbon dioxide fell, perhaps due to reforestation following the plague.

The researchers think that this drop in carbon dioxide levels could help to explain a cooling in the climate over the following centuries.

Ocean damper

From around 1500, Europe appears to have been gripped by a chill lasting some 300 years.

There are many theories as to what caused these bitter years, but popular ideas include a decrease in solar activity, an increase in volcanic activity or a change in ocean circulation.

The new data adds weight to the theory that the Black Death could have played a pivotal role.

Not everyone is convinced, however. Dr Tim Lenton, an environmental scientist from the University of East Anglia, UK, said: "It is a nice study and the carbon dioxide changes could certainly be a contributory factor, but I think they are too modest to explain all the climate change seen."

And Professor Richard Houghton, a climate expert from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, US, believes that the oceans would have compensated for the change.

"The atmosphere is in equilibrium with the ocean and this tends to dampen or offset small changes in terrestrial carbon uptake," he explained.

Nonetheless, the new findings are likely to cause a stir.

"It appears that the human impact on the environment started much earlier than the industrial revolution," said Dr van Hoof.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

Published: 2006/02/27 13:48:08 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 3, 2006, 3:14pm

Consensus grows on climate change
By Roger Harrabin
Environment Correspondent, BBC News

The global scientific body on climate change will report soon that only greenhouse gas emissions can explain freak weather patterns.

Simultaneous changes in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems, ocean acidification and wildlife migration are taking place.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had previously said gases such as CO2 were "probably" to blame.

Its latest draft report will be sent to world governments next month.

A source told the BBC: "The measurements from the natural world on all parts of the globe have been anomalous over the past decade.

"If a few were out of kilter we wouldn't be too worried, because the Earth changes naturally. But the fact that they are virtually all out of kilter makes us very concerned."

He said the report would forecast that a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would bring a temperature rise of 2-4.5C, or maybe higher.

This is an increase on projections in the last IPCC report, which suggested that the rise could be as little as 1.5C.

Uncertainties remain

The scientists will say there is still great uncertainty about the pace and scope of future change, although by the end of the century global temperatures could increase by up to 5.8C.

The doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial stable levels (270 parts per million) is expected to happen around the middle of the century.

What really worries the scientists is that we are already seeing major disruptions despite having increased CO2 by just 30%.

A recent scientific report commissioned by the UK government warned that the world might already be fixed on a path that would begin melting the Greenland ice cap. That in turn would start raising sea levels throughout the world.

There will be sceptics, predominantly in the US, who will accuse the IPCC of trying to scare policy-makers into action with their report.

And this draft will be revised several times over the coming year, so there could be major changes before the launch in 2007.

But assuming the key points remain, the broad international expert consensus embodied in the IPCC will make it harder for the US administration to say that climate change is a problem for the future which can be solved by technological advances.

In a meeting with climate campaigners, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the world needed to engage the Americans, Chinese and Indians in agreement over a figure for CO2 stabilisation.

But this is unlikely to happen while US President George W Bush is in office; his representative told the December climate conference in Montreal that the US would not agree any targets for reducing CO2. President Bush's chief adviser, James Connaughton, said recently that it was pointless discussing a safe CO2 level, as we could not be sure how resistant the world would be to greenhouse gases.

Maybe we could double CO2 with impunity, or maybe we could increase it threefold or fourfold; the issue was not worth discussing, he said.

Targets and timetables needed

Mr Blair echoed President Bush's call for new technologies to combat climate change.

But both men were told by international business leaders last year that more expensive new technologies would not supplant cheap dirty technologies unless governments set binding targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gases, which the US has rejected.

The prime minister confirmed that his long-delayed climate strategy review would be published this month, and would strive to meet his unilateral target of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010.

BBC News has been told that the central policy in the review, the CO2 cut for big business, is still being contested, with the prime minister's industry adviser Geoffrey Norris urging a more lax target than the one demanded by the environment department Defra.

Central figures in the review process are now admitting that the 20% target will be virtually impossible to hit, and are looking for a "respectable" near miss.

The definition of "respectable" is still under ferocious debate.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4761804.stm

Published: 2006/03/01 10:43:27 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 4, 2006, 7:51am

Melting Ice Caps Could Spell Disaster for Coastal Cities
Newly Discovered Antarctica Melts Threaten to Raise Seas
By BILL BLAKEMORE, ABCNews.com

(March 2) - For the first time, scientists have confirmed Earth is melting at both ends, which could have disastrous effects for coastal cities and villages.

Antarctica has been called "a slumbering giant" by a climate scientist who predicts that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise by 200 feet. Other scientists believe that such a thing won't happen, but new studies show that the slumbering giant has started to stir.

Melting at Both Ends Recent studies have confirmed that the North Pole and the South Pole have started melting.

Experts have long predicted that global warming would start to melt Greenland's two-mile-thick ice sheet, but they also thought the more massive ice sheet covering Antarctica would increase in the 21st century.

It seems they were wrong.

Two new studies find that despite the increasing snowfall that comes with global warming as a result of the increased moisture in the air, Antarctica's ice sheets are losing far more than the snow is adding.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century, with accelerated warming during the last two decades. Most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities through the buildup of greenhouse gases -- primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Although the heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed, uncertainties exist about exactly how Earth's climate responds to them.

"The warming ocean comes underneath the ice shelves and melts them from the bottom, and warmer air from the top melts them from the top," said NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally. "So they're thinning and eventually they get to a point where they go poof!"

Zwally explains that the ice shelves, which the Antarctic ice cap pushes out into the ocean, are responding more than they expected to Earth's warming air and water. If the melting speeds up to a rapid runaway process called a "collapse," coastal cities and villages could be in danger.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Earth Science Research, said that disaster could probably be avoided, but that it would require dramatically cutting emission outputs. If the proper actions aren't taken, Hansen said, the sea level could rise as much as 80 feet by the time today's children reach middle age.

"We now must choose between a serious problem that we can probably handle and, if we don't act soon, unmitigated disaster down the road," Hansen said.

Scientists looking at ice cores can now read Earth's temperatures from past millennia and match them to sea levels from those eras.

"Based on the history of the Earth, if we can keep the warming less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, I think we can avoid disastrous ice sheet collapse," Hansen said.

Hansen and other scientists point out that a rise of at least 1 degree Fahrenheit -- and another few feet of sea level -- seem virtually certain to happen because of the carbon that mankind has already put in the atmosphere.

March 2, 2006

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060302121209990001&cid=2194

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 5, 2006, 6:14am

21 February 2006
Carbon Dioxide 1, Coral Reefs 0

New research shows that oceanic acidity levels are rising due to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which may have major consequences for coral reefs, as they will likely erode faster than they can rebuild. This is the message that Dr. Christopher Langdon of the University of Miami is presenting in Honolulu at the American Geophysical Union's 2006 Ocean Sciences Meeting, which is focused on the "Possible Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 on Coral Reef Ecosystems." Other presenters at the meeting in Honolulu warn that coral reefs should not be our only concern, as they predict that if rising CO2 levels are left unchecked, there will be a mass extinction of marine life rivaling the one that occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared.

The researchers at the meeting say that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have caused ocean temperatures to rise and pH levels to drop. The potentially damaging effects of such a phenomenon went largely unnoticed by scientists during the last century because the initial increase in ocean temperatures of around 0.6 Celsius actually benefited some coral growth. But researchers such as Dr. Langdon believe that these benefits are fleeting, and controlled laboratory experiments show that if temperatures continue to rise and pH levels continue to fall, coral reefs will no longer be able to sustain their calcium carbonate skeletons.

"While we focus a great deal of attention on rising ocean temperatures and the bleaching incidents they cause in corals, we tend to overlook the other consequence of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on our corals: decreases in ocean pH," said Langdon. "Carbon dioxide in the ocean is creating a growing acidic environment for corals, and this acidity could ultimately cause our reefs to waste away."

The rise in acidity is caused when carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, some of it turning into carbonic acid. Rather than dissipating, carbonic acid accumulates over time and eventually causes a rise in acidity. The ocean floor can absorb and counter the effects of carbonic acid when the amounts are small enough, but the current huge input is engulfing ocean systems.

Dr. Ken Caldeira, also presenting his research at the meeting, claims that his computer models show that rising ocean acidity will reach damaging levels within the next century, and will remain that way for millennia. To add extra weight to his claims, Caldeira has compared his data with ocean chemistry evidence from the fossil record. Collectively, the data convinced Caldeira that if society does not rein in its CO2 emissions quick smart, then the planet's future looks bleak. "The geologic record tells us the chemical effects of ocean acidification would last tens of thousands of years," Caldeira explained. "But biological recovery could take millions of years. Ocean acidification has the potential to cause extinction of many marine species."

The planet's oceans have not been subjected to such extreme changes in chemistry since around the time that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Despite not knowing what caused that rise in acid levels, fossil records support the conclusion that the demise of the dinosaurs was directly related to the phenomenon. They show that there was a sudden decrease in species with calcium carbonate shells - such as corals and plankton - that lived in the upper ocean, while species with shells made of silicate stood a better chance of survival.

"Ultimately, if we are not careful, our energy system could make the oceans corrosive to coral reefs and many other marine organisms," Caldeira cautioned. "These results should help motivate the search for new energy sources, such as wind and solar, that can fuel economic growth without releasing dangerous carbon dioxide into the environment."

Source: University of Miami

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060121005225data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 6, 2006, 7:00am

Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast'
Melting glaciers in the Himalayas could lead to water shortages for hundreds of millions of people, the conservation group WWF has claimed.

In a report, the WWF says India, China and Nepal could experience floods followed by droughts in coming decades.

The Himalayas contain the largest store of water outside the polar ice caps, and feed seven great Asian rivers.

The group says immediate action against climate change could slow the rate of melting, which is increasing annually.

"The rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers will first increase the volume of water in rivers, causing widespread flooding," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF's Global Climate Change Programme.

"But in a few decades this situation will change and the water level in rivers will decline, meaning massive eco and environmental problems for people in western China, Nepal and northern India."

'Catastrophe'

The glaciers, which regulate the water supply to the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Thanlwin, Yangtze and Yellow rivers are believed to be retreating at a rate of about 10-15m (33-49ft) each year.

The world faces an economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global warming isn't reduced
Jennifer Morgan, WWF
Hundreds of millions of people throughout China and the Indian subcontinent - most of whom live far from the Himalayas - rely on water supplied from these rivers.

Many live on flood plains highly vulnerable to raised water levels.

And vast numbers of farmers rely on regular irrigation to grow their crops successfully.

The WWF said the potential for disaster in the region should serve to focus the minds of ministers of 20 leading industrialised nations gathering in London for two meetings on climate change.

"Ministers should realise now that the world faces an economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global warming isn't reduced," Ms Morgan said.

Temperatures rising

She added that a study commissioned for the WWF indicated that the temperature of the Earth could rise by two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in a little over 20 years.

Allowing global temperatures to rise that far would be "truly dangerous", Ms Morgan said.

Nepal, China and India are already showing signs of climate change, the WWF report claims.

Nepal's annual average temperature has risen by 0.06 degrees Celsius, and three snow-fed rivers have shown signs of reduced flows.

Water level in China's Qinghai Plateau wetlands has affected lakes, rivers and swamps, while India's Gangotri glacier is receding by 23m (75ft) each year.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm

Published: 2005/03/14 01:10:48 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 10, 2006, 12:02pm

Polar ice sheets show net loss
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter

There is a net loss of ice to the ocean from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, a study has found.

In one of the most comprehensive studies of its type, satellite data was used to plot changes in the height of the ice sheets between 1992 and 2002.

Writing in the Journal of Glaciology, a US team says that 20 billion tonnes of water are added to oceans each year.

Mass changes in the ice sheets match predictions from computer models of global climate change, they say.

Dr H Jay Zwally, of the US space agency (Nasa) Goddard Flight Center in Maryland, and colleagues analysed radar altimeter data from two European remote-sensing satellites, ERS-1 and ERS-2, as well as Nasa's plane-based Airborne Topographic Mapper instrument.

This seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all
Liz Morris, Scott Polar Research Institute
The survey documents extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, but a thickening in the East of the continent, though not by as much as some other studies have shown.

It shows the interior of Greenland is gaining mass due to increased snowfall, but the edges are getting thinner.

Competing forces

This mass gain is something which computer models of climate have predicted.

Warmer air is able to carry more water; so as the atmosphere heats up, Greenland and Antarctica should experience greater snowfall.

But rising temperatures could have the opposite effect at the edges of both landmasses, causing rates of melting to increase.

A recent study led by Eric Rignot of Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory showed the amount of ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean by Greenland's glaciers has doubled in the last five years.

"A race is going on in Greenland between these competing forces of snow build-up in the interior and ice loss on the edges," explained Dr Zwally.

"But we don't know how long they will be approximately in balance with each other, or if that balance has already tipped in favour of the recently accelerating outflow from glaciers."

The Rignot study included data up to 2005, whereas Jay Zwally's analysis ran only until 2002.

In the Antarctic, the new findings confirm the trend of other recent studies - that the West is losing mass to the oceans whereas the ice sheet in the East is either getting thicker or remaining stable.

"This seems to suggest that East Antarctica might not save our bacon after all," commented Dr Liz Morris of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, UK.


"We knew that West Antarctica was losing ice rapidly," she told the BBC News website. "The surprise is that the East Antarctic isn't showing more of a gain.

"Maybe the story there is that the moisture is never being carried on to the continent. You have got to get that packet of warmer air to the ice sheet in the first place."

If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.

"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.

"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm

Published: 2006/03/09 22:17:23 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 14, 2006, 6:05am

Published on Sunday, March 12, 2006 by the lndependent/UK
Death of the World's Rivers
Disaster warning from UN as investigation reveals half of the planet's 500 biggest rivers are seriously depleted or polluted
by Geoffrey Lean


The world's great rivers are drying up at an alarming rate, with devastating consequences for humanity, animals and the future of the planet.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal that more than half the world's 500 mightiest rivers have been seriously depleted. Some have been reduced to a trickle in what the United Nations will this week warn is a "disaster in the making".

From the Nile to China's Yellow River, some of the world's great water systems are now under such pressure that they often fail to deposit their water in the ocean or are interrupted in the course to the sea, with grave consequences for the planet.

Adding to the disaster, all of the 20 longer rivers are being disrupted by big dams. One-fifth of all freshwater fish species either face extinction or are already extinct.

The Nile and Pakistan's Indus are greatly reduced by the time they reach the sea. Some, such as the Colorado and China's Yellow River, now rarely reach the ocean at all. Others, such as the Jordan and the Rio Grande on the US-Mexico border, are dry for much of their length.

Even in Britain, a quarter of the country's 160 chalk rivers and steams - such as the Kennet in Wiltshire, the Darent in Kent, and the Wylye in Wiltshire - are running out of water because too much is being abstracted for homes, industry and agriculture.

This week an influential UN report will officially warn the world's governments of an "alarming deterioration" in the planet's rivers, lakes and other freshwater systems. Klaus Toepfer, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, told the IoS yesterday that the state of the world's rivers is "a disaster in the making".

The UN's triennial World Water Development Report, compiled for an international conference in Mexico City which opens on Thursday, warns that "we have hugely changed the natural order of rivers worldwide", mainly through giant dams and global warming. Some 45,000 big dams now block the world's rivers, trapping 15 per cent of all the water that used to flow from the land to the sea. Reservoirs now cover almost 1 per cent of land surface.

The UN report says that demand for them "will continue to increase", but recommends that they should be barred from the world's remaining, undammed "free-flowing" rivers.

The United States has dismantled 465 dams in recent years, mainly for environmental reasons. But last week, in an abrupt U-turn, it signalled that it was about to embark on its biggest dam-building campaign in decades, when the Washington State legislature passed a bill to allow the federal government to build a series of dams on the Columbia, the West's largest river.

Global warming is endangering even the rivers that have largely escaped damming.

The relatively untamed Amazon was hit by its most serious drought on record last autumn. And salmon are dying in Alaska's Yukon River - the world's longest undammed watercourse - because its waters are getting too hot.

On Tuesday an international day of action will see demonstrations across the globe to draw attention to rivers' plight.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-04.htm

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 15, 2006, 6:46am

NOAA - Carbon Dioxide Rises To Record Level In Air

By Randolph E. Schmid
3-15-6


WASHINGTON (AP) - The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere climbed to a record 381 parts per million last year, an increase sure to spark further debate on global warming.

The reading was up 2.6 parts per million, according to preliminary calculations, David J. Hofmann of the Office of Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.

Final calculations from reporting stations around the world won't be available until later in the spring, Hofmann said, but the preliminary numbers are usually quite close.

Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas. Those are chemicals that have been increasing in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, raising fears of altering the planet's climate by trapping heat from the sun.

In Geneva, Switzerland, meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization issued its own report for 2004, in which Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said, "Global observations coordinated by WMO show that levels of carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, continue to increase steadily and show no signs of leveling off.''

While the total of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up every year the amount of increase varies from year to year, Hofmann said.

The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide at a fairly steady rate, he explained, but some years plants are more active in taking it up as they grow while other years they use less. And years when there are large forest fires can release increased amounts of the gas into the air, he said.

"The real question is how long will the earth continue to adjust itself to take up the additional carbon dioxide,'' he said. "That's one of the major questions.''

In addition to carbon dioxide, the 2004 data from WHO calculated that nitrous oxide, which has been rising steadily since 1988, totaled 318.6 parts per billion. Methane has risen the most dramatically over the past two centuries, with the total amount in 2004 at 1,783 parts per billion, but its growth has been slowing, WMO said.

Hans Verolme, director of climate change for the World Wildlife Fund in the United States, welcomed the report as providing an authoritative measurement of the change.

"Unfortunately it confirms the other data that we've seen from NOAA and NASA and also it confirms with the trends we've seen in emissions from countries like the United States that still have not taken any real action to reduce carbon pollution,'' Verolme said.

Leonard Barrie, chief of atmospheric research at WMO, said: ``If you have that much more energy being trapped, where does it go? That's the question everybody wants to know. Is it increasing the average surface temperature? Is it increasing storm frequency?''

In September, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology reported that the number of more powerful hurricanes, category 4 and 5, has increased over the last 20 years, a period when average sea-surface temperature has risen. It's the warm water vapor from the oceans that provides energy for these massive storms.

According to NASA, 2005 had the highest annual average surface temperature worldwide since instrument recordings began in the late 1800s.

Nevertheless, the question of dealing with global climate change has proven a political stumbling block in recent years with the Bush administration rejecting the Kyoto protocol, which seeks to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Scientists worry that overall warming will melt glaciers and the polar ice caps, raising sea levels enough to damage many low-lying islands and cities around the world. In addition, a warmer climate could lead to changes in weather patterns, agriculture and even allow some diseases to expand into new areas.

Associated Press Writer Andrew G. Higgins in Geneva contributed to this story.

On the Net:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaa.gov
World Meteorological Organization: http://www.wmo.ch

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 22, 2006, 8:39am



Creamy Pink Snow Covers Russian Region

Created: 13.03.2006 14:19 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:19 MSK

MosNews

Creamy pink snow has covered the northern regions of Russia’s Maritime territory, news agencies reported Monday.

For some reason, the snow that fell in the densely populated northern regions after a powerful cyclone had acquired a pink color of varying tints.

Experts at the local meteorology centre said sand from neighboring Mongolia was to blame for this unusual natural phenomenon.
Before it arrived in Maritime, the cyclone passed Mongolia, where sand storms had been raging in the desert.

“The winds of the cyclone embraced dust particles that colored the fallouts,” the experts said.

February’s yellow snowfall with a strong odor and an oily texture was observed on Russia’s Far East island of Sakhalin. The color, odor and texture of the snow may have been a result of environmental pollution caused by the island’s oil and natural gas industry.

However, experts do not rule out this could be caused by volcanic activity.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/03/13/pinksnow.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 22, 2006, 8:43am

Global Warming - Icebergs Near Buenos Aires

From Scott Corrales
Inexplicata - The Journal Of Hispanic Ufology
3-22-6
Source: INFOBAE.com
3-21-6


The Argentinean Naval Prefectuyre was stunned at the presence of two icebergs -- measuring 250 meters in length -- that reached these shores a few weeks ago. A group of experts, businessmen and livestock producers provided details on how global warming will affect Argentina.

A few weeks ago, the Argentinean naval prefecture observed icebergs floating along the Argentinean Sea. "This is the first time that icebergs of this size have reached Buenos Aires," said Miguel Angel Reyes, chief of maritime traffic. "The Prefecture escorted the bergs until they were outside the danger zone, he added in statements to the Bloomberg news agency.

The PNA forced ships to change course after two icebergs, 250 meters long and 30 meters tall, broke off the Antarctic in January and drifted 4,400 miles north. Barely a month later, two more icebergs cruised by the Argentinean coast.

According to scientists, the change in the iceberg's routs evidences how global warming has modified meteorological patterns. In Argentina, this causes radical changes in the fields.

"The increase in temperatures is responsible for this," said Juan Carlos Leva, a geophysicist with the Unidad de Nivologia y Glaceologia of the Regional Center for Scientific and Technological Research of Mendoza. "The situation worsened," he told Bloomberg.

At the time, rising temperatures have caused floods in Cordoba, Santa Fe and Buenos Aires while at the same time, the heat dries up the rivers to the north at an fierce rate, affecting energy production and reducing the supply of available water for cultivation and consumption, said Vicente Barros, a professor of Climatology with the University of Buenos Aires.


(translation (c) 2006. Scott Corrales, IHU)

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 26, 2006, 8:15am

Rising seas raising alarms
Major study: Global warming will threaten coasts by 2100 if pollutants aren't reduced

Shaun McKinnon
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 24, 2006 12:00 AM

Global temperatures are climbing at a rate that will melt ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica before the end of this century, a disaster that could raise sea levels and scramble weather patterns across the planet, according to a new study.

Roiling oceans would redraw coastlines from Cape Cod to New Orleans, threatening low-lying cities with rising sea levels. Arizona and the West would grow hotter and drier, with shorter winters that would produce less runoff and further stress water supplies.

Even the scientists who framed that scenario in the study on global warming admit they were surprised at its grimness, taken aback by how rapidly the melting could accelerate. Moreover, they say, much of what the studies predict is already here: Temperatures are rising, sea levels are inching higher and warmer oceans are playing havoc with weather.
advertisement


Their research is outlined in two articles published today in the journal Science. The articles add more voices to an often-discordant debate over global warming and its effect on climate and the oceans.

Some critics have dismissed it as junk science and have produced data that they say show temperatures are starting to fall. Others question whether human-caused pollutants are to blame for rising temperatures, as many scientists argue.

Researchers in the latest studies believe humans do play a role and say there is time to avert the worst effects if world powers are willing to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants believed to contribute to warming. But at a yet-to-be-determined point midway through the century, the process will become irreversible.

"We now know enough in advance to stop it from happening," said Jonathan Overpeck, one of the chief researchers on the project and director of the University of Arizona's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. "If we let it go another couple of decades, we could be in real danger of crossing the threshold."

The studies, one led by Overpeck, the other by Bette Otto-Bliesner at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, examined climate data dating back about 130,000 years, a time between two ice ages.

Shifts in the Earth's tilt and orbit led to warmer conditions in the Arctic. Temperatures rose 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit, melting wide swaths of Greenland's ice sheet. The melted ice raised ocean levels as much as 11 feet, the scientists believe.

But natural climate records, including evidence from ancient coral reefs, sediments and fossils, indicate sea levels actually climbed by as much as 20 feet in that period, more than what the Greenland ice sheet could account for. Overpeck theorized that disintegrating ice sheets at the Antarctic were responsible for the difference.

His research suggests the rise in sea levels caused by Arctic warming and melting probably destabilized Antarctic ice shelves, which are more vulnerable than Arctic ones.

"To get rid of Greenland's ice, you have to melt it," Overpeck said. "In the Antarctic, all you have to do is break up the ice sheet and float it away, and that would raise sea level. It's just like throwing a bunch of ice cubes into a full glass of water and watching the water spill over the top."

The scientists believe the process could occur more quickly today because of global-scale year-round warming. Temperatures are rising in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Man-made pollutants could hasten melting by darkening the ice and snow, allowing it to absorb more sunlight, the studies say.

"The implications are global," Otto-Bliesner said. "These ice sheets have melted before, and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn't that much above present conditions."

What made the findings more urgent is how closely the predictions match trends in global climate and ocean conditions, Overpeck said.

• Temperatures have been steadily rising over the past decade. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. The UA study predicted the Earth's temperatures will rise by at least 4 degrees by 2100, which would be comparable to conditions 130,000 years ago, when the ice sheets melted.

Even a 1-degree rise in temperature is significant on a global scale. Such changes are usually measured in fractions of a degree.

"The Arctic is already warming much faster than we thought it would," Overpeck said. "To think we're not going to get 4 to 5 degrees warmer in another 50 years is wishful thinking."


• Sea levels are rising more rapidly, in part due to thermal expansion of the ocean waters caused by the worldwide rise in temperatures, he said. That expansion didn't occur 130,000 years ago because the warming was more localized.

By the end of this century, sea levels could rise 3 to 4 feet; if current warming trends continue, "we're committed to 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) in the future," Overpeck said.

The implications for heavily populated U.S. coastlines are ominous. The scientists produced images that show wide areas of the upper Eastern Seaboard underwater if oceans rise as high as they once did. The Florida and Gulf coasts would be eaten away, exposing cities such as New Orleans to crippling storm surges more often. The effects would gradually spread as sea levels caught up to the melting ice sheets.

• Rising ocean temperatures are blamed for volatile weather worldwide and are believed to be a contributor to Arizona's drought, now in its 11th year. Melting ice sheets could worsen those trends.

"Arizona's in front of the line to get hammered by this. It's going to make our state drier: hot and drier," Overpeck said. "That's bad for natural vegetation and bad for water supplies. We'll see a lot less snow."

Several studies have concluded that climate change will shorten winters across the West, reducing the amount of snow that falls and the flow of water into rivers and reservoirs.

But Overpeck and other scientists are convinced it's not too late. To slow warming, federal and state officials would have to impose strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. They also would need to demand energy conservation and step up use of wind, solar energy and advanced biofuels.

"The knowledge we need to implement these things is already developed or close to being developed," Overpeck said.

He lauded efforts by individual states to address climate change, but he acknowledges that not everyone agrees on the solution or even the problem. He said corporate interests with a stake in the status quo have enlisted scientists to "make it sound like these things are less certain than they really are."

"People also think we have to make big changes, that there's not much we can do," Overpeck said.

"There's lots we can do. With every year that goes by, there are new technologies. The biggest problem humankind has ever faced is something we can deal with, but it takes a national will to act."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0324warming0324.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 28, 2006, 4:02pm

Earth Is at The Tipping Point

The climate is crashing and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon -- and what we can do about it.
By JEFFREY KLUGER, TIME

No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth. Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

It certainly looked that way last week as the atmospheric bomb that was Cyclone Larry -- a Category 5 storm with wind bursts that reached 180 m.p.h. -- exploded through northeastern Australia. It certainly looked that way last year as curtains of fire and dust turned the skies of Indonesia orange, thanks to drought-fueled blazes sweeping the island nation. It certainly looks that way as sections of ice the size of small states calve from the disintegrating Arctic and Antarctic. And it certainly looks that way as the sodden wreckage of New Orleans continues to molder, while the waters of the Atlantic gather themselves for a new hurricane season just two months away. Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast -- when the emergency becomes commonplace -- something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming.

The image of Earth as organism -- famously dubbed Gaia by environmentalist James Lovelock -- has probably been overworked, but that's not to say the planet can't behave like a living thing, and these days, it's a living thing fighting a fever. From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us. Scientists have been calling this shot for decades. This is precisely what they have been warning would happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping the heat that flows in from the sun and raising global temperatures.

Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem.

But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us.

"Things are happening a lot faster than anyone predicted," says Bill Chameides, chief scientist for the advocacy group Environmental Defense and a former professor of atmospheric chemistry. "The last 12 months have been alarming." Adds Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts: "The ripple through the scientific community is palpable."

And it's not just scientists who are taking notice. Even as nature crosses its tipping points, the public seems to have reached its own. For years, popular skepticism about climatological science stood in the way of addressing the problem, but the naysayers -- many of whom were on the payroll of energy companies -- have become an increasingly marginalized breed. In a new TIME/ ABC News/ Stanford University poll, 85 percent of respondents agree that global warming probably is happening. Moreover, most respondents say they want some action taken. Of those polled, 87 percent believe the government should either encourage or require lowering of power-plant emissions, and 85 percent think something should be done to get cars to use less gasoline. Even Evangelical Christians, once one of the most reliable columns in the conservative base, are demanding action, most notably in February, when 86 Christian leaders formed the Evangelical Climate Initiative, demanding that Congress regulate greenhouse gases.

A collection of new global-warming books is hitting the shelves in response to that awakening interest, followed closely by TV and theatrical documentaries. The most notable of them is "An Inconvenient Truth," due out in May, a profile of former Vice President Al Gore and his climate-change work, which is generating a lot of prerelease buzz over an unlikely topic and an equally unlikely star. For all its lack of Hollywood flash, the film compensates by conveying both the hard science of global warming and Gore's particular passion. Such public stirrings are at last getting the attention of politicians and business leaders, who may not always respond to science but have a keen nose for where votes and profits lie. State and local lawmakers have started taking action to curb emissions, and major corporations are doing the same. Wal-Mart has begun installing wind turbines on its stores to generate electricity and is talking about putting solar reflectors over its parking lots. HSBC, the world's second largest bank, has pledged to neutralize its carbon output by investing in wind farms and other green projects. Even President Bush, hardly a favorite of greens, now acknowledges climate change and boasts of the steps he is taking to fight it. Most of those steps, however, involve research and voluntary emissions controls, not exactly the laws with teeth scientists are calling for.

Is it too late to reverse the changes global warming has wrought? That's still not clear. Reducing our emissions output year to year is hard enough. Getting it low enough so that the atmosphere can heal is a multigenerational commitment. "Ecosystems are usually able to maintain themselves," says Terry Chapin, a biologist and professor of ecology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. "But eventually they get pushed to the limit of tolerance."

CO2 and the Poles

As a tiny component of our atmosphere, carbon dioxide helped warm Earth to comfort levels we are all used to. But too much of it does an awful lot of damage. The gas represents just a few hundred parts per million (p.p.m.) in the overall air blanket, but they're powerful parts because they allow sunlight to stream in but prevent much of the heat from radiating back out. During the last ice age, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was just 180 p.p.m., putting Earth into a deep freeze. After the glaciers retreated but before the dawn of the modern era, the total had risen to a comfortable 280 p.p.m. In just the past century and a half, we have pushed the level to 381 p.p.m., and we're feeling the effects. Of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 occurred in the 1980s or later. According to NASA scientists, 2005 was one of the hottest years in more than a century.

It's at the North and South poles that those steambath conditions are felt particularly acutely, with glaciers and ice caps crumbling to slush. Once the thaw begins, a number of mechanisms kick in to keep it going. Greenland is a vivid example. Late last year, glaciologist Eric Rignot of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and Pannir Kanagaratnam, a research assistant professor at the University of Kansas, analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that Greenland ice is not just melting but doing so more than twice as fast, with 53 cu. mi. draining away into the sea last year alone, compared with 22 cu. mi. in 1996. A cubic mile of water is about five times the amount Los Angeles uses in a year.

Dumping that much water into the ocean is a very dangerous thing. Icebergs don't raise sea levels when they melt because they're floating, which means they have displaced all the water they're ever going to. But ice on land, like Greenland's, is a different matter. Pour that into oceans that are already rising (because warm water expands), and you deluge shorelines. By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft.

Feedback Loops

One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface shrinks, it changes the relationship of Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90% of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking much of its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90% of the energy it receives. The more energy it retains, the warmer it gets, with the result that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.

That is what scientists call a feedback loop, and it's a nasty one, since once you uncap the Arctic Ocean, you unleash another beast: the comparatively warm layer of water about 600 ft. deep that circulates in and out of the Atlantic. "Remove the ice," says Woods Hole's Curry, "and the water starts talking to the atmosphere, releasing its heat. This is not a good thing."

A similar feedback loop is melting permafrost, usually defined as land that has been continuously frozen for two years or more. There's a lot of earthly real estate that qualifies, and much of it has been frozen much longer than two years--since the end of the last ice age, or at least 8,000 years ago. Sealed inside that cryonic time capsule are layers of partially decayed organic matter, rich in carbon. In high-altitude regions of Alaska, Canada and Siberia, the soil is warming and decomposing, releasing gases that will turn into methane and CO2. That, in turn, could lead to more warming and permafrost thaw, says research scientist David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. And how much carbon is socked away in Arctic soils? Lawrence puts the figure at 200 gigatons to 800 gigatons. The total human carbon output is only 7 gigatons a year.

One result of all that is warmer oceans, and a result of warmer oceans can be, paradoxically, colder continents within a hotter globe. Ocean currents running between warm and cold regions serve as natural thermoregulators, distributing heat from the equator toward the poles. The Gulf Stream, carrying warmth up from the tropics, is what keeps Europe's climate relatively mild. Whenever Europe is cut off from the Gulf Stream, temperatures plummet. At the end of the last ice age, the warm current was temporarily blocked, and temperatures in Europe fell as much as 10°F, locking the continent in glaciers.

What usually keeps the Gulf Stream running is that warm water is lighter than cold water, so it floats on the surface. As it reaches Europe and releases its heat, the current grows denser and sinks, flowing back to the south and crossing under the northbound Gulf Stream until it reaches the tropics and starts to warm again. The cycle works splendidly, provided the water remains salty enough. But if it becomes diluted by freshwater, the salt concentration drops, and the water gets lighter, idling on top and stalling the current. Last December, researchers associated with Britain's National Oceanography Center reported that one component of the system that drives the Gulf Stream has slowed about 30% since 1957. It's the increased release of Arctic and Greenland meltwater that appears to be causing the problem, introducing a gush of freshwater that's overwhelming the natural cycle. In a global-warming world, it's unlikely that any amount of cooling that resulted from this would be sufficient to support glaciers, but it could make things awfully uncomfortable.

"The big worry is that the whole climate of Europe will change," says Adrian Luckman, senior lecturer in geography at the University of Wales, Swansea. "We in the U.K. are on the same latitude as Alaska. The reason we can live here is the Gulf Stream."

Drought

As fast as global warming is transforming the oceans and the ice caps, it's having an even more immediate effect on land. People, animals and plants living in dry, mountainous regions like the western U.S. make it through summer thanks to snowpack that collects on peaks all winter and slowly melts off in warm months. Lately the early arrival of spring and the unusually blistering summers have caused the snowpack to melt too early, so that by the time it's needed, it's largely gone. Climatologist Philip Mote of the University of Washington has compared decades of snowpack levels in Washington, Oregon and California and found that they are a fraction of what they were in the 1940s, and some snowpacks have vanished entirely.

Global warming is tipping other regions of the world into drought in different ways. Higher temperatures bake moisture out of soil faster, causing dry regions that live at the margins to cross the line into full-blown crisis. Meanwhile, El Niño events--the warm pooling of Pacific waters that periodically drives worldwide climate patterns and has been occurring more frequently in global-warming years--further inhibit precipitation in dry areas of Africa and East Asia. According to a recent study by NCAR, the percentage of Earth's surface suffering drought has more than doubled since the 1970s.

Flora and Fauna

Hot, dry land can be murder on flora and fauna, and both are taking a bad hit. Wildfires in such regions as Indonesia, the western U.S. and even inland Alaska have been increasing as timberlands and forest floors grow more parched. The blazes create a feedback loop of their own, pouring more carbon into the atmosphere and reducing the number of trees, which inhale CO2 and release oxygen.

Those forests that don't succumb to fire die in other, slower ways. Connie Millar, a paleoecologist for the U.S. Forest Service, studies the history of vegetation in the Sierra Nevada. Over the past 100 years, she has found, the forests have shifted their tree lines as much as 100 ft. upslope, trying to escape the heat and drought of the lowlands. Such slow-motion evacuation may seem like a sensible strategy, but when you're on a mountain, you can go only so far before you run out of room. "Sometimes we say the trees are going to heaven because they're walking off the mountaintops," Millar says.

Across North America, warming-related changes are mowing down other flora too. Manzanita bushes in the West are dying back; some prickly pear cacti have lost their signature green and are instead a sickly pink; pine beetles in western Canada and the U.S. are chewing their way through tens of millions of acres of forest, thanks to warmer winters. The beetles may even breach the once insurmountable Rocky Mountain divide, opening up a path into the rich timbering lands of the American Southeast.

With habitats crashing, animals that live there are succumbing too. Environmental groups can tick off scores of species that have been determined to be at risk as a result of global warming. Last year, researchers in Costa Rica announced that two-thirds of 110 species of colorful harlequin frogs have vanished in the past 30 years, with the severity of each season's die-off following in lockstep with the severity of that year's warming.

In Alaska, salmon populations are at risk as melting permafrost pours mud into rivers, burying the gravel the fish need for spawning. Small animals such as bushy-tailed wood rats, alpine chipmunks and piñon mice are being chased upslope by rising temperatures, following the path of the fleeing trees. And with sea ice vanishing, polar bears--prodigious swimmers but not inexhaustible ones--are starting to turn up drowned. "There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Somewhere along that path, the polar bear drops out."

What About Us?

It is fitting, perhaps, that as the species causing all the problems, we're suffering the destruction of our habitat too, and we have experienced that loss in terrible ways. Ocean waters have warmed by a full degree Fahrenheit since 1970, and warmer water is like rocket fuel for typhoons and hurricanes. Two studies last year found that in the past 35 years the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has doubled while the wind speed and duration of all hurricanes has jumped 50%. Since atmospheric heat is not choosy about the water it warms, tropical storms could start turning up in some decidedly nontropical places. "There's a school of thought that sea surface temperatures are warming up toward Canada," says Greg Holland, senior scientist for NCAR in Boulder. "If so, you're likely to get tropical cyclones there, but we honestly don't know."

What We Can Do

So much for environmental collapse happening in so many places at once has at last awakened much of the world, particularly the 141 nations that have ratified the Kyoto treaty to reduce emissions--an imperfect accord, to be sure, but an accord all the same. The U.S., however, which is home to less than 5% of Earth's population but produces 25% of CO2 emissions, remains intransigent. Many environmentalists declared the Bush Administration hopeless from the start, and while that may have been premature, it's undeniable that the White House's environmental record--from the abandonment of Kyoto to the President's broken campaign pledge to control carbon output to the relaxation of emission standards--has been dismal. George W. Bush's recent rhetorical nods to America's oil addiction and his praise of such alternative fuel sources as switchgrass have yet to be followed by real initiatives.

The anger surrounding all that exploded recently when NASA researcher Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a longtime leader in climate-change research, complained that he had been harassed by White House appointees as he tried to sound the global-warming alarm. "The way democracy is supposed to work, the presumption is that the public is well informed," he told TIME. "They're trying to deny the science." Up against such resistance, many environmental groups have resolved simply to wait out this Administration and hope for something better in 2009.

The Republican-dominated Congress has not been much more encouraging. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have twice been unable to get through the Senate even mild measures to limit carbon. Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, both of New Mexico and both ranking members of the chamber's Energy Committee, have made global warming a high-profile matter. A white paper issued in February will be the subject of an investigatory Senate conference next week. A House delegation recently traveled to Antarctica, Australia and New Zealand to visit researchers studying climate change. "Of the 10 of us, only three were believers," says Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York. "Every one of the others said this opened their eyes."

Boehlert himself has long fought the environmental fight, but if the best that can be said for most lawmakers is that they are finally recognizing the global-warming problem, there's reason to wonder whether they will have the courage to reverse it. Increasingly, state and local governments are filling the void. The mayors of more than 200 cities have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging, among other things, that they will meet the Kyoto goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in their cities to 1990 levels by 2012. Nine eastern states have established the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the purpose of developing a cap-and-trade program that would set ceilings on industrial emissions and allow companies that overperform to sell pollution credits to those that underperform-- the same smart, incentive-based strategy that got sulfur dioxide under control and reduced acid rain. And California passed the nation's toughest automobile- emissions law last summer.

"There are a whole series of things that demonstrate that people want to act and want their government to act," says Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. Krupp and others believe that we should probably accept that it's too late to prevent CO2 concentrations from climbing to 450 p.p.m. (or 70 p.p.m. higher than where they are now). From there, however, we should be able to stabilize them and start to dial them back down.

That goal should be attainable. Curbing global warming may be an order of magnitude harder than, say, eradicating smallpox or putting a man on the moon. But is it moral not to try? We did not so much march toward the environmental precipice as drunkenly reel there, snapping at the scientific scolds who told us we had a problem.

The scolds, however, knew what they were talking about. In a solar system crowded with sister worlds that either emerged stillborn like Mercury and Venus or died in infancy like Mars, we're finally coming to appreciate the knife-blade margins within which life can thrive. For more than a century we've been monkeying with those margins. It's long past time we set them right.

With reporting by Greg Fulton/ Atlanta, Dan Cray/ Los Angeles, Rita Healy/ Denver, Eric Roston/ Washington, With reporting by David Bjerklie, Andrea Dorfman/ New York, Andrea Gerlin/ London

http://reference.aol.com/globalwarming/timemagazine?id=20060327120109990001

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 31, 2006, 7:33pm

Global Warming: Be Very Afraid

By Mark Anderson
02:00 AM Mar, 29, 2006

According to Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, the threat of global climate change is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Yet when Elizabeth Kolbert, a staff writer for The New Yorker, surveyed the world's leading climate scientists, she discovered an alarming unanimity to their message: The world needs to wake up, and fast.

Author of a three-part New Yorker series on climate change last year, Kolbert has collected her work in one slim volume. Published this month, Field Notes From a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change is already being compared favorably to landmark environmental tome Silent Spring.

Kolbert's reporting took her from the glaciers of Greenland to the Monteverde cloud forest of Costa Rica -- and into the labs and offices of climatologists, oceanographers and others studying the effects of billions of tons of human-generated carbon that now hangs overhead.

Wired News: Many people seem to think that climate change is an issue involving a few scientists, not society as a whole. But your book makes it clear that climate change is more than just a science story.

Elizabeth Kolbert: I really tried to impress upon people ... how we cannot wait. Even now, as global warming is starting to be made manifest in the world, we have determined the climate now for the next half-century. We will not see the full effects of what we have done for decades. (NASA climate scientist) James Hansen said, if we continue on this path, then by the end of this century, we will have committed ourselves to a world that is so warm as to be practically a different planet.

WN: Isn't part of the problem that people associate "warm" with comfortable?

Kolbert: People think, "I won't have to go to Florida anymore. Florida will come to me." People should realize that warmth doesn't mean Florida. It means New York is underwater. It may be that certain places like Siberia are more comfy, but it also means that they have no water. If people say, "Why should I be worried about global warming?" I think the answer is, "Do you like to eat?"

WN: You talk about David Rind's work -- predicting rampant drought conditions afflicting much of the continental United States within 50 years if greenhouse gas emissions continue at business-as-usual levels.

Kolbert: (In the book) he says that, "I wouldn't be surprised if by 2100 most things are destroyed." But he's certainly a very cool guy, not a hysterical person. He's a scientist, and he's just looking at the evidence.

WN: On the other hand, sometimes societal change can happen very quickly. Hit a social tipping point, and suddenly everything's different. And that could be a very good thing.

Kolbert: I think you do see out there in the world ... an increasing awareness. We here in the Northeast just barely had a winter. I think that anyone who has lived through the past winters certainly has been given pause. So we're starting to see the argument that "there's nothing going on" dissipating.

Then you get to the second question, and that's what are we going to do about it? If you want to be really brutally honest, this is not a problem that can be solved. The warming that we've seen so far is estimated to be only half of what (the CO2 already in the atmosphere will cause). It's a problem that you can only say, "In order to prevent this from becoming absolutely catastrophic, perhaps we can do this." But that (is) going to take a monumental effort.

WN: In Lester Brown's words, the world needs an "environmental Churchill."

Kolbert: George Bush could be that person if he had come out in his State of the Union (speech) and said we really need to address this issue -- as opposed to just throwing a bone to it. But you need a leader who people will follow. And you need really bold ideas and a sense of common purpose, and that's so much what we're lacking right now. We've got one planet, only one. You screw up, and that's it.

WN: Any other world leaders who you see showing promise?

Kolbert: The Europeans are way ahead of us, certainly in terms of rhetoric. If you read Tony Blair's speeches, he's very eloquent on the subject. But I don't see anyone on the world stage who has been able to galvanize people around this issue.

WN: In the United States, realistically, the solutions are probably going to be market-driven. What are the things that can be done to make the market sensitive to ecological factors?

Kolbert: Many economists have looked at this issue, and most have ... come to the same place. You have to shift the costs of carbon. Now we're all bearing the cost of carbon emissions in a non-monetary way. And you have to somehow convert that.

WN: So you're talking about a carbon tax.

Kolbert: Yes. Or a carbon emissions trading system.

WN: In other words, some kind of mechanism needs to be in place to monetize the notion of carbon emissions. Playing fantasy baseball, then, what would be a realistic and effective carbon tax in the United States?

Kolbert: People have given me the figure of $100 per ton. If you just run the numbers, people will tell you that's the level you need to make other things competitive and to incentivize the behavior that you're trying to achieve.

WN: And that works out to about $15 a month on a typical home utility bill?

Kolbert: Right.

WN: You also promote Robert Socolow's idea of "stabilization wedges."

Kolbert: What he said (is), you basically need to start stabilizing global emissions now. If we don't do anything, by the middle of the century, we will be at 14 billion tons of carbon per year. We're now at seven. So we basically take the difference between 14 and 7. That's a triangle. You take that triangle. Those are what we need to not emit over the next 50 years. Divide that into wedges: a billion tons per year per wedge at the end, by the time you're at 2050.

How do you get rid of a billion tons per year? He and his colleague came up with 15 ways that are practical. You choose seven of those, and you can achieve that goal. One wedge is a car wedge: Every car has to get twice as good mileage by 2050.... Another wedge he gets out of wind. He gets a wedge out of solar.... He gets a wedge out of nuclear. He gets a wedge out of heating and lighting, doing that more efficiently.

WN: You quote a Nature study predicting that 15 percent to 37 percent of the species on this planet will be extinct or committed to extinction in 50 years. That's an astonishing figure.

Kolbert: People much more expert than I will tell you that we are in the middle of what is probably a mass extinction. People will say that the evolution of large vertebrates, of which we are one, that's just over.

WN: Is there anything, then, that gives you hope for mitigating against catastrophic climate change?

Kolbert: The only thing that gives me hope is that we've survived this long. But I think people should appreciate that this (is) likely to be on the level of any catastrophe we've weathered before. Potentially worse. I'm sorry I can't be more upbeat. I don't want to say I despair, but I also don't want to say, "Not to worry."

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/lifescience/1,70393-0.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Mar 31, 2006, 8:53pm

Unexpected warming in Antarctica
By Jonathan Fildes
BBC News science reporter


Winter air temperatures over Antarctica have risen by more than 2C in the last 30 years, a new study shows.

Research published in the US journal Science says the warming is seen across the whole of the continent and much of the Southern Ocean.

The study questions the reliability of current climate models that fail to simulate the temperature rise.

In addition, the scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) say the cause of the warming is not clear.

It could be linked to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or natural variations in Antarctica's climate system.

Scientists are keen to understand the change in temperatures over the continent as the region holds enough water in its ice to raise sea levels by 60 metres.

Temperature rise

Temperature rises on parts of the surface of Antarctica have been seen for some time. The western side of the Antarctic Peninsula is known to have the largest annual warming seen anywhere in the world with increases of over 2.5C in the last 50 years.

Until now, very little was known about air temperatures above the vast continent.

The new work uses meteorological data collected from weather balloons launched in the Antarctic winters between 1971 and 2003. The scientists collected information from nine international research stations, mostly in the east of the continent.

It's the largest regional warming on Earth at this level
Dr John Turner
The researchers were particularly interested in measurements taken in the middle troposphere, the layer of air at a height of about 5km (3 miles).

Their analysis shows that temperatures in the layer have risen by between 0.5 and 0.75C for each of the last three decades.

"It's the largest regional warming on Earth at this level," said Dr John Turner of BAS, one of the authors of the paper.

However a question remains over what is causing the change.

"There are arguments for and against this temperature rise being caused by greenhouse gases," Dr Turner told the BBC News website.

"The problem is trying to differentiate between what is happening naturally and what is happening because of man's activities".

Climate models

To try to resolve the conundrum, the BAS team compared the data with 20 simulations of the climate over the last century.

The models simulate rising levels of greenhouse gases and are used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to replicate past climates and make predictions for the future.

The team found that in all cases, the models failed to simulate the rise.

Dr Turner believes this could mean the temperature rise is a result of a natural fluctuation in Antarctica's climate or that current models are inadequate.

Dr Jeff Ridley, a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the UK, agrees.

He believes it is likely that current climate models are unable to sufficiently recreate conditions on the continent.

"I've looked at all these models and seen that Antarctica is not very well modelled at all," he said. "So we shouldn't put too much confidence in what they tell us is going to happen there."

For example, observations show that in Antarctica winds flow from the South Pole out to the coast in winter. As they move they lose energy, causing heating and mixing the air above.

But in the climate models, simulating these air flows and the mixing is too complex. Instead the model is simplified with a cold layer at the surface that does not mix with the rest of the atmosphere.

One reason for this is the scant data that has been collected across the continent. Another is that the climate models are still not very good at simulating relatively small-scale regional processes.

Dr Ridley is trying to work out how to overcome problems like this in climate models, and believes the new data will help understanding of processes in Antarctica.

But he says we should not lose faith in the ability of current models to predict worldwide climate change.

"On a global scale, the processes we have in the models work well. We are confident we are able to predict the past, and globally we can predict climate change."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4857832.stm

Published: 2006/03/30 18:39:59 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 1, 2006, 8:12pm

Public Opinion does take time to change. You can't bully or harass Public Opinion into accepting a point of view but you can as sure as hell scare it witless to manipulate a change. It happened with the alleged "War on Terror" and now its finally happening with "Global Warming". The only remaining question I have is what will happen when Public Opinion discovers that many of the problems occurring now and for the forseeable future are being caused unsanctioned mitigation programmes conducted on a global scale:

68% Say Govt. Should Do More To Address Global Warming...

Time | Posted March 26, 2006 02:20 PM
READ MORE: 2006, George W. Bush, Global Warming

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is 'extremely' or 'very important' to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world's temperatures, about three-in-ten (31%) feel it is caused by the things people do, almost one fifth (19%) feel it is caused mostly by natural causes; almost half (49%) feel it is a combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll. More than six-in-ten respondents (64%) think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.

TIME/ABC NEWS/STANFORD UNIVERSITY POLL:

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll, out Sunday, March 26th. A vast majority of respondents (88%) think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens them a great deal. About four-in-ten (38%) feel that global warming is already a serious problem, 47% feel that it will be in the future. TIME's special 26-page cover story, 'Be Worried. Be Very Worried,' hits newsstands Monday, March 27th.

Half of Americans (52%) say weather patterns in the county where they live have grown more unstable in the last three years and half (50%) feel that average temperatures have risen in their county. A majority (70%) thinks weather patterns globally have become more unstable in the last three years and more than half (56%) feel average temperatures around the world have risen.

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is 'extremely' or 'very important' to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world's temperatures, about three-in-ten (31%) feel it is caused by the things people do, almost one fifth (19%) feel it is caused mostly by natural causes; almost half (49%) feel it is a combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll. More than six-in-ten respondents (64%) think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say President George W. Bush's policies did little or nothing to help the environment in the past year. More than half (54%) feel American businesses did little or nothing to help. Three-quarters want to see Bush and others-Congress, American businesses and the American public-take action to help the environment in the year ahead. However, about one-third (35%) of Americans say that in the past year they have personally given a lot of thought to the impact they were having on the environment.

Six-in-ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and 52% favor government mandates. Six-in-ten (61%) say they would support a government mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to develop water, wind and solar power. Eighty-one percent oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68% oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants.

The partisan gap on global warming seems to be shifting, according to the poll. In 1998, 31% of Republicans and Independents alike were sure that global warming was happening; it was not a distant 39% among Democrats. Today, 46% of Democrats and 45% of Independents are certain, and 26% of Republicans feel that way, according to the TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll.

Methodology: This TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll was conducted by telephone March 9-14, 2006 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/03/26/68-say-govt-should-do-m_n_17918.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 7, 2006, 12:58pm

Vessel Measures Record Ocean Swells

By Markus Becker

A British research team has observed some of the biggest sea swells ever measured. A whole series of giant waves hammered into their ship that were so big, according to computer models used to set safety standards for ships and oil rigs, they shouldn't even exist.

When the RRS Discovery set out to sea, the crew was expecting stormy weather. Meteorologists had predicted a violent storm, and the scientists -- a team from Britain's National Oceanography Center -- wanted to observe it from up close. What they ended up experiencing went far beyond anything they could have imagined -- and could have cost them their lives.

Near the island of Rockall, 250 kilometers (155 miles) west of Scotland, enormous waves came racing toward the vessel. When they checked their measuring instruments later, the scientists discovered that the tallest of these monster waves had hit nearly 30 meters (98 feet) at wind force 9. And it didn't come alone. "We were shaken up these waves for 12 hours," said Naomi Holliday, the leader of the expedition. Entire sets of giant waves hammered the ship.

After the adrenaline levels of the scientists had fallen somewhat, astonishment spread among the crew. The standard computer programs had predicted stormy weather for February 8, 2000, but not such a tempest. Even more astonishing, the giant waves had not appeared individually, but in a group. Previously waves of such size were assumed to only appeared alone.

What Holliday characterized as a "dangerous situation" has turned out to be a spate of luck. The Discovery's crew witnessed the largest waves ever measured by a scientific instrument on the open sea, according to an article the scientists have only now published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Biggest waves ever measured

With a height of up to 29.1 meters (95 feet) from trough to crest, the single waves are the highest ever measured. In terms of so-called significant wave height, they established a new record, according to the scientists: 18.5 meters (61 feet). Significant wave height is the median height of a wave's upper third. It corresponds roughly to the sea swell that experienced sailors can estimate with the naked eye.

More important than the record, however, is how the waves were born. "They were not caused by very strong winds," Holliday told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The strongest phase of the storm had already been over for a day when the largest water masses hit the RRS Discovery.

The scientists think a so-called resonance effect was responsible for the monstrous waves: waves and wind travelled across the Atlantic at practically the same speed. The storm was able to pump energy into the waves efficiently for a long time, building them up to giant size. According to the article published by Holliday and her team, the rapid increase in wave height at the beginning of the event supports this hypothesis.

Trouble for sailors and shipbuilders?

The new data may spell trouble for sailors and shipbuilders, the British scientists believe. Their research results suggest that giant waves may be much more common than previously believed. "Of course we can't make general claims about all the world's seas on the basis of the specific event we observed," Holliday said. "But computer simulation can do this for us."

According to Holliday, plugging the new data into the standard formulas shows that existing computer simulations are slightly off the mark -- at least as far as the formation of giant waves is concerned. "The waves we observed were not predicted by the computer simulation," Holliday explained. That has implications for the construction of ships and oil rigs. "The safety standards are partly based on the computer simulations."

Why was the difference between simulation and reality not noticed earlier? Because of the relative scarcity of measuring buoys and ships collecting scientific data, according to Holliday: "Direct wave height measurements are extremely rare." Cargo ships tend to avoid powerful storms, and oil rigs are so few and far between they hardly ever encounter giant waves.

For this reason alone, the measurements taken by the British research expedition are "spectacular," confirmed Wolfgang Rosenthal, a marine weather expert at a Geesthacht research institute associated with Germany's GKKS ship-building society. Waves of the sort observed by Holliday's team had already been analyzed theoretically, but the only practical knowledge about them came from vague reports. The new measurements confirm the theories that have been developed. "Nothing like this has ever been documented before," Rosenthal said.

Not freak waves

The significant wave height of 18.5 meters (61 feet) is particularly interesting, according to Rosenthal. "The giant 29 meter (95 feet) waves fit well with this statistically," Rosenthal said. He explains that the giant waves observed at Rockall are not the same as the notorious "freak waves" that appear out of nowhere during relatively mild weather, destroying even large vessels. Only those waves are considered freak waves whose overall height is at least twice their significant wave height. When the significant wave height is in the region of 18.5 meters (61 feet), giant waves roughly 30 meters (98 feet) tall become possible -- as they did near Rockall in 2000, and as Holliday and her colleagues were able to find out for themselves.

But Rosenthal doubts that the new data will have a significant effect on security standards in shipbuilding. "A single case doesn't render the existing computer simulations obsolete," he said. Nonetheless, questions about the accuracy of computer simulations have been raised for some time with regard to sea swells under extreme weather conditions. Rosenthal explained that this is partly a result of the weak measurements obtained by means of satellite-based radar. "The stronger the wind gets, the weaker and harder to measure the radar signal reflected by the waves," he said.

Holliday -- whose team includes an expert for computer simulations of sea swells -- is convinced her measurements will contribute to an improvement in computer models. "The existing models strongly underestimate maximal wave heights," she said. "The people in charge of simulations are going to have to find out what they're doing wrong."


http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internat....08953%2C00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 8, 2006, 4:09am

US south lashed by storms, tornadoes


April 8, 2006 - 1:18PM

A line of severe thunderstorms and tornadoes marched across the US South, peeling away roofs, overturning cars and killing at least 11 people in Tennessee, officials said.

It was the second wave of violent weather to hit Tennessee in less than a week. Last weekend, thunderstorms and tornadoes killed 24 people in the western part of the state and destroyed more than 1000 homes and buildings.

The storms on Friday raked an area from northern Mississippi to northern Virginia as they moved to the northeast late yesterday after developing from a low-pressure system in the central Plains.

The Nashville suburbs were the hardest hit, with at least eight deaths happening northeast of the city.

Fire Chief Joe Womack said three bodies were pulled from the wreckage of homes in a subdivision of Gallatin, about 39 kilometres northeast of the city.

Steven Davis, who lives about a block from the subdivision, said he ran to a neighbour's home to take shelter in a crawl space when he heard the storm approaching.

"When the tornado came through, the roof was off just like that," Davis said, snapping his fingers. Houses on each side of his street were destroyed.

"Our neighbourhood is levelled," Davis said.

Tornadoes were also reported in the Nashville suburbs of Goodlettsville, Hendersonville and Ashland City, and in Holladay, about 145 kilometres west of Nashville. The storms flattened trees, knocked down power lines and damaged homes and other buildings.

Spotty communications made it difficult for emergency responders to get a full picture of the damage. Phone lines to authorities and most businesses were out of service.

Hospitals admitted at least 60 people with storm-related injuries and transferred at least nine critically injured patients to Nashville hospitals.

At Volunteer State Community College in Gallatin, several people suffered cuts and scratches, spokesman Eric Melcher said.

Two campus buildings were severely damaged, Melcher said. Emergency workers searched other buildings in an attempt to account for all students.

Three car dealerships near the college were devastated, with 250 cars destroyed.

A tower that held the tornado warning siren was destroyed in Ashland City.

In Kentucky, two homes were destroyed, possibly by a tornado.

In southern Indiana, the storms pelted some areas with golf ball-sized hail. High winds blew the roof off a country club and toppled a semitrailer.

As the storms moved farther east, parts of West Virginia were lashed with heavy rain and winds, blowing the roofs off businesses and sending trees crashing into houses.

The number of tornadoes in the United States has jumped dramatically through the first part of 2006 compared with the past few years, according to the National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Centre.

Through the end of March, an estimated 286 tornadoes had hit the United States, compared with an average of 70 for the same three-month period in each of the past three years.

The number of tornado-related deaths was 38 before Friday's storms. The average number of deaths from 2003 to 2005 was 45 a year, the prediction centre said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-sout....3916757332.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 10, 2006, 10:58am

Air trends 'amplifying' warming
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website, in Vienna

Only when solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect
Martin Wild

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.

Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.

Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than believed.

But they say there is an urgent need for further research, particularly at sea.

Dimming no more

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.

This trend received some publicity under the term "global dimming".


But in the 1980s, it appears to have reversed, according to two papers published last year in the journal Science.

The decline in Soviet industry and clean air laws in western countries apparently reduced concentrations of aerosols, tiny particles, in the atmosphere.

These aerosols may block solar radiation directly, or help clouds to form which in turn constitute a barrier; or both effects may occur.

The lead researcher on one of those Science papers was Martin Wild from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich, and this week he has been discussing the implications of those findings at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) annual meeting in Vienna.

Correlations and causality

The reversal of "global dimming" has been proposed in some circles as an alternative explanation for climatic change, removing the need to invoke human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Wild dismissed this picture. His analysis suggests that "global dimming" and the man-made greenhouse effect may have cancelled each other out until the early 1980s, but now "global brightening" is adding to the impact of human greenhouse emissions.

"There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations," he told the BBC News website.

"During the solar dimming we had really no temperature rise. And only when the solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect, and that is only starting in the 1980s."

Analyses of global temperature indicate that a sharp upward trend commenced in the early 1980s.

But, said Dr Wild, there are strong regional variations in the "solar brightening" trend.

"In Eastern Europe, we see a very strong recovery [in solar radiation] - almost back to what it was before dimming began," he said.

"But India continues with the dimming - that's very much thought to be due to increasing air pollution.

"The general position is that air pollution is still increasing in the tropics, but decreasing outside the tropics; so probably that will amplify warming a little bit outside the tropics but not inside."

Data deficit

There are, Dr Wild admitted, holes in the picture of change.

"The term 'global dimming' is a bit dangerous," he said. "I usually call it 'solar dimming' not 'global dimming' because we really only know about this where we have measurements; and we don't have measurements at many places, for example over the oceans, or land in the tropics."

More research facilities are needed, he said, in tropical regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, and especially the oceans.

As well as extending measurements of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface, he urged more research on aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and on trends in cloud cover.


Rolf Philipona from the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, is attempting to improve aerosol measurements in northern Europe.

"We're trying to put a paper together which shows the aerosol depth and the amount of aerosol in the air column from about six to eight stations in Europe," he told the BBC News website.

"In Germany and Switzerland we would have stations very high up, extending all the way to the North Sea."

Last year Dr Philipona released research indicating that European warming is largely driven by increases in humidity.

The mechanism is that rising levels of what are conventionally called "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide and methane, cause more evaporation of water, which in the atmosphere is itself a greenhouse gas.

He believes this is having more impact than changes to the transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere.

"From my results I believe it's the greenhouse warming and in particular the water vapour feedback," he said.

"Studies and papers are also coming now which are looking more closely at what water vapour is doing in other regions; and there are several pieces of work showing water vapour is increasing over land areas like the United States."

Satellites and ships


A further implication of "global brightening" is that the temperature difference between night and day may reduce.

The "blanket" of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a net heating effect during day and night, whereas changes in solar energy reaching the surface are felt only in daytime.

Disproportionately higher night-time temperatures have already been noted in many parts of the world, and research in the Philippines has linked this trend to a reduction in rice yield.

The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.

One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.

The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

Published: 2006/04/07 08:50:09 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 11, 2006, 2:42pm

11 April 2006
Plants’ Capacity To Soak Up Carbon Limited

Plants do much less than previously thought to soak up carbon dioxide, say Bruce Hungate of Northern Arizona University and Kees-Jan van Groenigen of the University of California Davis. Their paper, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that plants are limited in their capacity to clean up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And unfortunately, even their current abilities may be diminishing.

According to the paper, the limitation on carbon take-up stems from a dependence on nitrogen and other trace elements that are essential for photosynthesis; the process that removes carbon dioxide from the air and transfers it back into the ground. "Our paper shows that in order for soils to lock away more carbon as carbon dioxide rises, there has to be quite a bit of extra nitrogen available - far more than what is normally available in most ecosystems," explained Hungate.

It was previously thought that rising carbon dioxide levels would also speed up the process of nitrogen fixation, where plants "pump" nitrogen back into the soil. But this process can only increase if higher levels of other essential nutrients, such as potassium, phosphorus and molybdenum are available. "The discovery implies that future carbon storage by land ecosystems may be smaller than previously thought, and therefore not a very large part of a solution to global warming," Hungate lamented.

While plants may not save the planet, they still play an important role in reducing carbon dioxide levels. "We do know that CO2 in the atmosphere would be increasing faster were it not for current carbon storage in the oceans and on land," said Hungate. "But land ecosystems appear to have a limited and diminishing capacity to clean up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is likely to be far more effective than expecting natural ecosystems to mop-up the extra CO2 in the atmosphere."

Source: Northern Arizona University


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060311043102data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 11, 2006, 3:07pm

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060330181319.htm

Source: British Antarctic Survey

Posted: March 30, 2006
Rapid Temperature Increases Above The Antarctic

A new analysis of weather balloon observations from the last 30 years reveals that the Antarctic has the same 'global warming' signature as that seen across the whole Earth, but is three times larger than that observed globally. The results by scientists from British Antarctic Survey are reported this week in Science.

Although the rapid surface warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region has been known for some time, this study has produced the first indications of broad-scale climate change across the whole Antarctic continent.

Lead author Dr. John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey says,

"The warming above the Antarctic could have implications for snowfall across the Antarctic and sea level rise. Current climate model simulations don't reproduce the observed warming, pointing to weaknesses in their ability to represent the Antarctic climate system. Our next step is to try to improve the models. "

The paper -- Significant warming of the Antarctic winter troposphere -- is published in Science on 30 March 2006.

Background

Daily launches of weather balloons have been carried out at many of the Antarctic research stations since the International Geophysical Year of 1957-8. The balloons carry instrument packages called radiosondes that measure temperature, humidity and winds up to heights of 20 km or more. Recently many of the old radiosonde records have been digitised and brought together in a project funded by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

Analysis of the radiosonde data showed a winter season warming throughout the troposphere, which extends up to about 8 km, and cooling in the stratosphere above. The largest warming of almost three quarters of a degree Centigrade per decade was found close to 5 km above the surface. This is over three times the rate of warming observed for the world as a whole.

The warming has occurred across the whole of the Antarctic and is apparent in the balloon data from Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole to the many stations along the coast of East Antarctica.

Although climate change at the surface of the Earth receives wide attention, the atmosphere in recent decades has in fact warmed most some 4-5 km above the surface, with the stratosphere cooling above. There is increasing evidence that levels of greenhouse gases have provided a blanket above the Earth trapping heat at lower levels and giving cooling in the layers above.

Air temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula region have risen by over 2.5°C in the last 50 years, about 5 times faster than the global mean rate.

In recent decades both Polar Regions have shown very contrasting patterns of change at the surface, with the Arctic warming markedly, while there has been little change in the Antarctic outside of the Antarctic Peninsula region. Changes above the surface have not been investigated previously.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/story.php?id=281

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 11, 2006, 3:08pm

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060404200308.htm

Source: European Geosciences Union

Posted: April 5, 2006
Methane Flux From Arctic Tundras: It's The Hydrology, Stupid!

Many fear that, in the coming years, large amounts of methane will be released into the atmosphere. Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and global warming could lead to melting of the arctic tundras, setting free large volumes of methane, scientists have reported at the European Geosciences Union's General Assembly being held in Vienna, Austria. This would in its turn increase global warming.

Methane fluxes from the arctic permafrost areas attract scientific attention because the release of this powerful greenhouse gas may act as a positive feedback to climate warming. Methane release, generally, is enhanced by increasing the metabolic activity of methane bacteria in warmer arctic soils, or by the release of methane from melting permafrost.

However, research in the Northeast Siberian tundra has shown the importance of floodplain hydrology. The floodplains of arctic lowland rivers are major methane sources, where methane fluxes may be 5 times as high as in non-flooded tundra bogs. Moreover, these fluxes are very sensitive to river discharge fluctuations and the incidence of river floods. During a two year field campaign the drier year resulted in a 75% reduction of the methane flux. Currently, both air temperature and river discharges are rising significantly in the arctic.

http://www.egu-media.net/content/view/97/49/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 14, 2006, 11:26am

Stark warning over climate change
The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, the government's chief scientist warned.

That would put up to 400 million people worldwide at risk of hunger, said Professor Sir David King in a report based on computer predictions.

He told the BBC the world had to act now to tackle global warming expected to happen over the next 100 years.

He said even if international agreement could be reached on limiting emissions, climate change was inevitable.

The UK Government and the EU want to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, but the US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising quickly.

The government report says a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops and put about 400 million more people at risk of hunger.


HAVE YOUR SAY
I do not think enough countries really see it as a serious issue... yet!!
Tom McLaughlan, Western Isles, UK

Professor King told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "We don't have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do so let's just carry on living as per usual.

"It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population.

"What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so.

"We need to begin that process of investment."

He said it would be a major challenge for developing countries, in particular.



In a report for the UK's prestigious Hadley Centre he warned that even if international agreement could be reached on limiting emissions - for CO2 at 550 parts per million in the atmosphere - this could result in an increase of 3C or more.

The government's ambition to cut CO2 by 60% by 2050 was founded on a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that assumed 550ppm was a safe level.

But to hold temperature rise below 2C with a high degree of certainty global levels of CO2 should be kept below 400ppm, the Hadley Centre says.

Scientists admit the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated their calculations are uncertain.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has criticised Professor King for accepting global temperatures could rise above 2C.

Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said: "It is technologically possible to significantly reduce our emissions and deliver 2C - Professor King should be pressing for government polices to deliver on this rather than accepting the current lack of political will and talking of 3 degrees as an inevitability."

So far, the US, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has been unwilling to debate a CO2 threshold.

President Bush's chief climate adviser, James Connaughton, said he did not believe anyone could forecast a safe level and cutting greenhouse gas emissions could harm the world economy.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4888946.stm

Published: 2006/04/14 15:03:54 GMT

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 15, 2006, 11:45am

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060415112241.htm

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

Posted: April 15, 2006

Parts Of The Caribbean And Central America Are Likely To Have Less Summer Rain

Parts of the Caribbean and Central America are likely to experience a significant summer drying trend by the middle of this century, UCLA atmospheric scientists will report in the April 18 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Their research is based on an analysis of 10 global climate computer simulations, from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and from Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. (The study is published this week in the PNAS online edition.)

The majority of the computer models calls for a substantial decrease in tropical rainfall to occur by 2054, or sooner under some of the models, said J. David Neelin, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, and lead author of the study. By the end of this century, the models call for a decrease in summer rainfall of 20 percent or more in parts of the Caribbean and Central America, Neelin said. The winter change in rainfall in this region is not dramatic, added Neelin, who noted that summer and winter rains occur by very different climate phenomena. If the models prove correct, the decreased rainfall would be a consequence of human-induced global warming, he said.

"The regions in the tropics that get a lot of summer precipitation are going to get more, and the regions that get very little precipitation will get even less, if the models are correct," Neelin said. "Certain regions in between will get shifted from a moderate amount of precipitation to a low amount. The bigger the temperature rise, the larger the change in precipitation."

Neelin cautioned, however, that precipitation changes due to global warming have been more difficult to detect and attribute to global warming than changes in temperature.

"Precipitation change is much more difficult than temperature change to detect, and requires great precision; the models do not all agree, but the majority of them do," Neelin said. "A slight error -- for example, whether the wind is flowing from a dry region into the convection zone, or whether the wind is blowing past the convection zone without going into it -- can cause one model to have a drought in a particular region, while another model does not. You have to be careful when talking about precipitation; there is natural variability, from year to year and from decade-to-decade."

The computer climate simulations also agree on the magnitude of drying trends in other regions within the tropics but disagree on where it will occur. The Caribbean/Central-American region is an example where the models agree reasonably well.

Neelin's research is federally funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In addition to analyzing the computer simulations, Neelin and his colleagues analyzed satellite precipitation data available since 1979, and rain gauge measurements since the 1950s. Over the last 50 years, the Caribbean has experienced a trend of decreased summer precipitation, but not a dramatic one, Neelin said. The computer models predict that will be a continuing trend.

"We can't exclude that the precipitation decrease over the last 50 years is part of a natural cycle, unrelated to global warming," Neelin said. "It is plausible that the decrease is due to global warming, but there is not yet a 'smoking gun' that shows that to be the case."

Co-authors on the PNAS article are Matthias Münnich, a UCLA researcher in atmospheric and oceanic sciences; Hui Su, a former UCLA researcher now at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Joyce Meyerson, a UCLA researcher in atmospheric and oceanic sciences; and Chris Holloway, a UCLA graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Neelin conducts research on processes that govern tropical precipitation, and year-to-year climate variability. He is writing a textbook for Cambridge University Press on climate modeling and climate change.

Concerning global warming, Neelin said, "For years, the vast majority of scientists have felt there is convincing evidence that we are at the beginning stages of human-induced global warming, and the observed global temperature record keeps supporting these predictions. However, there is still uncertainty about the amount of warming that will occur by the end of this century."

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 16, 2006, 7:46am

Temperatures to rise 3 degrees

By Charles Clover
April 16, 2006

THE world should get used to the idea of average temperatures rising by three degrees because it is not politically achievable to reduce global warming further than that, warns Britain's chief scientist.

Professor Sir David King said on Friday that even by the most optimistic assessments carbon dioxide levels were due to rise to double what they were at the time of the industrial revolution.

If no steps were taken to manage the change, he said, few eco-systems would be able to adapt and 400 million people worldwide would be at risk of hunger as up to 440 million tonnes of cereal production was lost.

Warming of three degrees is the level at which scientists predicted last year that "dangerous" changes would begin to occur, including irreversible changes to sea currents, including the Gulf Stream.

They predicted other likely changes at this level would be a dieback of the Amazon forest - leading to a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere - and the melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Ice suspended above sea level in Greenland alone is enough to raise sea levels by seven metres.

Professor King told BBC Radio: "If you ask me where do we feel the temperature is likely to end up if we move to a level of carbon dioxide roughly twice the pre-industrial level - and the level at which we would be optimistically hoping we could settle - the temperature rise could well be in excess of [three degrees].

"And yet we are saying [this] is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement."

The United States is refusing to make any cuts in its carbon emissions. China and India are not required to make any cuts under the Kyoto climate treaty.

Britain's Labour Party recently announced it would fail to meet its three-times repeated manifesto promise of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010.

Professor King said it was essential that the world began now to make the necessary changes.

"We don't have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do, so let's just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population," he said.

"What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment."

He said the situation would be even worse if temperatures rose more than three degrees and "would be extremely difficult for world populations to manage".

Professor King was scathing about politicians who believed they could simply rely on new technologies to produce cleaner fuels and said they must start listening to the scientists. "There is a difference between optimism and head in the sand," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/tempera....4521544501.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 21, 2006, 11:06am

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060420171121.htm

Source: Duke University

Posted: April 20, 2006

Ancient And Modern Evidence Suggests Limits To Future Global Warming

Instrumental readings made during the past century offer ample evidence that carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere are warming Earth's climate, a team led by Duke University scientists has reported. But by analyzing indirect evidence of temperature fluctuations over six previous centuries, the team also found that the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.

In making their deductions, the researchers ran some 1,000 computer simulations, covering 1,000 years, that took into account a range of modern and ancient climate records. Modern records are based on thermometer readings, while measurements derived from such sources as tree rings and ice cores served as markers of warm and cold spells over prior centuries.

The investigators evaluated the data using an "energy balance model" that they describe as a slimmed-down version of the heavy-duty computer models typically used to analyze climate trends. It is the model's streamlined nature that enabled the researchers to perform such large numbers of simulations over such a long period in such detail, they said.

The group used thousands of different versions of this model, each version varying in some of its properties, in order to determine which variants best matched actual observations. One key property that varied was what the researchers termed "sensitivity" -- that is, how much the simulations' temperatures would change in response to increasing greenhouse gas levels.

"What I can say very confidently is that the present-day sensitivity is not zero, meaning that there is a positive, warming response to greenhouse gases," said climate analyst Gabriele Hegerl, an associate research professor at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. "Our work also substantially reduces the probability of very high climate sensitivities."

Hegerl is lead author of the study, published April 20, 2006, in the journal Nature. Her co-authors are Thomas Crowley, Duke's Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science; William Hyde, a former Nicholas School research scientist now at the University of Toronto; and David Frame, a researcher at the University of Oxford.

Their work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Many scientists expect that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will sometime this century reach double the levels that were present during preindustrial times. Because carbon dioxide traps outgoing heat energy similarly to the glass in a greenhouse, the additional human-created outputs of the gas -- mostly from fossil-fuel burning -- are expected to warm Earth's climate. The key question is: by how much?

The commonly accepted range for how much average global temperatures will rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade, according to the researchers. But some observational studies, they noted, suggest the possibility that average temperatures might rise more than 9 degrees.

However, the new study -- using "reconstructions" of Northern Hemisphere temperatures since the year 1270 -- indicates a 90 percent probability that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels will result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 6.2 degrees, the team reported.

In turn, the study showed a reduced likelihood that the actual maximum increase will exceed 4.5 degrees -- "from 36 percent to 15 percent or less," the researchers said. A 4.5 degree increase is the highest maximum currently predicted by the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Hegerl said her group confined its study largely to the Northern Hemisphere because only there have scientists collected enough data to reconstruct temperature variations over the entire past millennium.

According to Hegerl, some studies claim that preindustrial temperatures fluctuated very little until the past century, and have risen sharply since.

"But our reconstruction supports a lot of variability in the past, as well as an upward trend in the 20th century," she said. And a record with plenty of ups and downs before the modern era "shows a climate reacting then and now to a variety of 'external forcing,'" she said.

The term "external forcing" refers to all those outside influences that can perturb the climate. Understanding how temperatures responded to such forcings in the premodern era -- when the impact of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases varied relatively little -- helps scientists predict future forcings by greenhouse gases, Hegerl said.

"Looking back longer in time makes it possible to more confidently rule out responses that are very high or very low," she said.

The researchers consulted instrumental records of the various forcings that have occurred in modern times, with the aim of comparing those to actual recorded temperatures.

In order to reconstruct temperatures from the centuries before 1850, the team used various lines of indirect evidence. They looked, for example, at particulates trapped in ice cores as measures of past volcanic eruptions. Such eruptions eject clouds of particles high into the atmosphere. By reducing the amount of sunlight that can pass through the atmosphere, the particles tend to cool the climate for a time, Hegerl said.

They also consulted a number of tree ring studies that reveal hot and cold spells in ancient growth variations, as well as studies that can estimate temperatures as far back as the 1600s based on readings obtained from holes bored deep into the ground.

Although the researchers collected data spanning a full millennium, because of some technical limitations they actually simulated temperature variations over a roughly 700-year period beginning in 1270.

All in all, the researchers considered four different detailed reconstructions of past climates, including a new reconstruction done by Crowley and Hegerl, to deduce probable temperatures before reliable instruments were available.

According to Hegerl, past volcanic eruptions provided the strongest tie between past climate forcings and temperatures. "You can see downturns in temperature exactly where you see volcanic eruptions," she said.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 23, 2006, 11:54am

24 March 2006
Ozone – The Pollutant That Got Away
By Rusty Rockets

Like kids in a candy store, we humans love to exploit the resources that nature has on offer, but this, as we are becoming painfully aware, comes at an immense cost. As we pump out pollutants and clear-fell vast tracks of wilderness in the name of progress, the pressure that we put on the Earth’s ecosystems threatens every species continued existence on this planet. Late last century, scientists realized that while everyone smelled wonderful and had their hair perfectly coiffed, the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) found in many aerosols were contributing to an expanding hole in the ozone layer. The ozone layer is a good example of just how precariously balanced the Earth’s systems really are, as ozone is both essential and detrimental to life. While people may justly agonize over the problems associated with the hole in the ozone layer positioned high in the stratosphere, most people don’t realize that too much ozone at ground-level is just as deadly. One study found that even extremely low levels of ozone, the principal ingredient in smog, can have serious health implications.

The ozone found in the high-altitude regions of the stratosphere filters out the ultraviolet (UV) radiation that we know is responsible for sunburn and skin cancer. It was British physicist Sidney Chapman, who in 1930 discovered that when UV light hits an oxygen molecule (O2), the rays separated the two oxygen atoms, producing what is known as atomic oxygen. Ozone (O3) is formed when atomic oxygen goes on to bond with other oxygen molecules. As an allotrope of oxygen, ozone’s 3-atom structure is not as stable as its 2-atom oxygen counterpart. As a result, free radical catalysts, such as CFCs (an organohalogen compound) produced can break down ozone molecules causing ozone depletion, which in turn allows an increase of UV rays hitting the Earth.

While ozone at higher altitudes is clearly beneficial, the ozone found within the Earth’s troposphere (the lowest region of the atmosphere that comprises 75 percent of its mass) is a dangerous pollutant and greenhouse gas. At normal levels, ozone is one component of many that produce ongoing chemical reactions and processes that contribute to a functioning atmosphere. While naturally occurring background levels of ozone are acceptable, higher levels, caused by fossil fuel combustion, result in it becoming a pollutant. As with stratospheric ozone, tropospheric ozone pollutants are the result of photochemical processes. The culprits this time are nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and other unstable organic compounds that produce ozone when exposed to sunlight. The source of all these chemicals can be traced back to what are called ozone precursors, such as exhaust fumes, industrial emissions and other man-made chemical compounds. Worryingly, it’s possible that a depleted stratospheric ozone layer will allow greater UV penetration that in turn, may exacerbate the tropospheric ozone pollutant problem. What’s more, the effects of these highly concentrated levels of ozone are not localized, as the pollution can be carried many hundreds of miles away from its original source. The prognosis for human health in both scenarios is decidedly grim.

The added concern, only recently realized, is that because of ozone’s high volatility, scientists cannot assume the presence of an evenly distributed level of ozone in the troposphere. Studies released by Harvard scientists in early 2004, confirmed fears that the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were overestimating background levels of ozone. In the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, atmospheric chemist Arlene Fiore argued that: "Our results actually indicate that the EPA is overestimating the background level, and as a result is underestimating the health risk associated with ozone pollution." Fiore’s team also claimed that: "results from our modeling study also indicate that frequent springtime high-ozone events, which were previously attributed by some researchers to a natural, stratospheric source, are driven largely by pollution." The team showed that ozone levels are highly variable depending on what area was being tested, so when asked if a sliding scale should be implemented to measure background ozone levels, the team’s response was a resounding “yes!” "Our modeling study shows that background ozone concentrations in surface air are highly variable, and this variability in background ozone – and its associated risk level – should be taken into account," said Fiore.

As a more recent study funded by the EPA shows, there is little margin for error when measuring ozone levels, as only a tiny rise above background levels is enough to impact health. “Any anthropogenic contribution to ambient O3, however slight, still presents an increased risk for premature mortality,” said co-author of the study, Francesca Dominici. The study found that even a 10 part-per-billion increase in the average of the two previous days' ozone levels is associated with a 0.30 percent increase in mortality. The authors of the study claim that: “tropospheric ozone is a common urban area pollutant linked to numerous harmful health effects, including reduced lung function, increased frequency of respiratory symptoms and development of asthma.” Even short-term ozone exposure, say the authors, is linked to health problems, but they add that the: “exposure-response curve for ozone remains unknown.” Dominici explains that: “more than 100 million people in the US live in areas that exceed the current health-based US National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.” But even as number crunchers within the US add up these less-than-cheery figures, Dominici adds that developing nations are pumping out ozone precursors by the ton, as their transportation networks rapidly grow.

All of this has wider implications for global climate change. Recently, scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) evaluated how ozone in the troposphere has contributed to warming in specific regions of the world over the past 100 years. They found that ozone was responsible for a staggering one-third to one-half of observed warming in the Arctic region during winter and spring. The team say that ozone is carried from industrialized regions in the Northern Hemisphere to the Arctic most efficiently during these particular seasons.

These latest findings, say the GISS team, add some extra incentive for authorities to tackle urban air pollution more seriously. "We now see that reducing ozone pollution can not only improve air quality, but also have the added benefit of easing climate warming, especially in the Arctic." Ozone is now one of several air pollutants regulated in the United States by the EPA but whether it’s too-little, too-late, remains to be seen.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/ozone.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 24, 2006, 10:32am

Global Drought Continues to Spread (25/04/2006)



http://www.atsnn.com/story/204046.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 27, 2006, 11:09am

While the following post considers 2005, the recent category 5 cyclones (hurricanes) in Australia are also part of the equation:

Experts - Global Warming Behind Record 2005 Storms
By Thom Akeman
4-25-6


MONTEREY, Calif (Reuters) -- The record Atlantic hurricane season last year can be attributed to global warming, several top experts, including a leading US government storm researcher, said on Monday.

"The hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now," said Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Holland told a packed hall at the American Meteorological Society's 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology that the wind and warmer water conditions that fuel storms that form in the Caribbean are "increasingly due to greenhouse gases. There seems to be no other conclusion you can logically draw."

His conclusion will be debated throughout the week-long conference, as other researchers present opposing papers that say changing wind and temperature conditions in the tropics are due to natural events, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions clouding the Earth.

Many of the experts gathered in the coastal city of Monterey, California, are federal employees. The Bush administration contends global warming is an unproven theory.

While many of the conference's 500 scientists seem to agree that a warming trend in the tropics is causing more and stronger hurricanes than usual, not all agree that global warming is to blame.

Some, like William Gray, a veteran hurricane researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, attributed the warming to natural cycles. Gray said he believes salinity buildups and movements with ocean currents cause warming and cooling cycles. He predicted the Caribbean water will continue to warm for another five to 10 years, then start cooling.


MORE WARMING TO COME

Whatever the cause, computer projections indicate the warming to date -- about one degree Fahrenheit (half a degree Celsius) in tropical water -- is "the tip of the iceberg" and the water will warm three to four times as much in the next century, said Thomas Knutson, explaining projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey.

Adam Lea, a postdoctoral student at Britain's University College London in Dorking, Surrey, presented research based on British, German, Russian and Canadian studies that concludes half of the increased hurricane activity in the tropics could be attributed to global warming.

Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the federal research center, said tropical storm anomalies in the 1940s and 1950s can be explained by natural variability.

But he said carbon dioxide started changing traceable patterns in the 1970s and by the early 1990s, the atmospheric results were affecting the storm numbers and intensities.

"What we're seeing right now in global climate temperature is a signature of climate change," said Holland, a native of Australia. "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases."

Hurricane Katrina, which tore onto the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts on Aug. 29, was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 77 years and the costliest ever, with property damages estimated at US$75 billion.

This year, the weather service's Tropical Prediction Center expects more hurricanes than usual, but not as many as last year's record 14.

http://www.rense.com/general70/eexp.htm

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 27, 2006, 11:33am

Signs of times to come:

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Apr 29, 2006, 1:22pm

In considering what we do know the hype surrounding these satellites is just so much BS:

Story location: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Science&storyId=1517733

NASA cloud satellites blast off
The Associated Press
Friday, April 28, 2006 6:54 a.m. ET

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- After a series of delays, a pair of NASA satellites blasted off early Friday on a mission to study how clouds affect weather and climate.

A Boeing Delta II rocket carrying the CloudSat and Calipso satellites launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in central California shortly after 3 a.m.

Once in orbit, the satellites will join the "A-Train" constellation _ a trio of environmental spacecraft already surveying the Earth's atmosphere. The "A-Train" includes NASA's Aqua and Aura satellites and a French spacecraft.

Unlike previous atmospheric research satellites, CloudSat and Calipso are equipped with advanced instruments that can view clouds in 3-D. Scientists hope the enhanced view will aid them in understanding how clouds and airborne particles known as aerosols influence weather and climate changes and affect air quality.

The successful launch Friday came after a week of delays blamed on communication failure and bad weather. The satellites were supposed to fly last year, but technical difficulties and a strike by Boeing workers keep them grounded.

___

On the Net:

CloudSat mission: http://www.nasa.gov/cloudsat

Calipso mission: http://www.nasa.gov/calipso

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 3, 2006, 9:12am


Glacier melt leading to sandstorms
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Beijing

May 02, 2006


GLOBAL warming was melting glaciers in China's Tibetan region at a rate of 7.0 per cent yearly, triggering drought, desertification and sandstorms in other regions, state press reported today.
Data collected in four decades had shown that glaciers on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau, known as the "roof of the world", were shrinking at an unprecedented pace, Xinhua news agency said.

"The melting glacier will ultimately trigger more droughts, expand desertification and increase sandstorms," the report quoted Dong Guangrong, a specialist at the China Academy of Sciences, as saying.

About 47 per cent of China's glaciers are on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in the Himalayas, where the Yangtze, Yellow, Brahmaputra, Mekong and Salween rivers all originate.

The fast rate of glacier melt has meant more water run-off from the plateau which exacerbates soil erosion and leads to desertification, it said.

Northern China, including Beijing, has suffered from 13 dust storms this year which have been attributed to desertification in China's north-western regions, including Qinghai province.


In the worst storm on April 17, an estimated 336,000 tons of dust fell on Beijing, leaving the air quality in the capital at hazardous levels.

Rising temperatures on the plateau might also pose a threat to the world's highest railway, which is expected to go into operation in July, according to Chinese press reports.

The landmark Tibetan railway linking Qinghai province with Tibet could be destabilised if the permafrost, or frozen ground, underneath the tracks melt, the reports said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19000903-38197,00.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 5, 2006, 9:20am

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/268973_warm04.html

Air current vital to climate weakens; humans blamed

Thursday, May 4, 2006

By MIKE TONER
COX NEWS SERVICE

ATLANTA -- Atmospheric circulation over the Pacific Ocean has weakened significantly during the past century, and scientists say the most likely explanation for the shift is human-induced climate change.

Although few people have heard of the vast loop of winds known as the Walker Circulation, its effects are felt worldwide -- as disruptive El Niño episodes, seasonal Asian monsoons and the upwelling of cold water from the deep ocean that nourishes marine food chains.

"The Walker Circulation is fundamental to climate throughout the globe, and variations in its intensity and structure affect climate across the planet," Gabriel Vecchi of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research said Wednesday. "The scale of this feature is enormous."

In the current issue of the British journal Nature, Vecchi and a team of scientists report that the Walker Circulation, which is the source of the trade winds in the tropical Pacific, has weakened by 3.5 percent since the mid-1800s. Most of the weakening has occurred in the past 50 years.

Many theoretical studies have suggested that such a change would occur if the world is warming, but the latest research -- based on a half-century of sea-level pressure measurements -- is the first to show that it is actually taking place.

"This rate at which the Walker Circulation is weakening appears to be accelerating," Vecchi says. "We don't know what it's going to do, but the scale of this feature is so enormous that it is basic to the structure of the atmosphere. It spans half the globe."

One hint of what may be in store lies in the natural shift in weather patterns known as El Niño, which brings devastating droughts to Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Australia, violent winter storms to the U.S. West Coast and a sharp decline in fishing along the Pacific coast of South America.

A temporary weakening of the Walker Circulation -- and a slackening of the easterly trade winds -- is one of the key events signaling the onset of a new El Niño. But researchers say any long-term weakening might lead to more frequent, or perhaps even chronic, El Niño-like disruptions across the Pacific basin.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 5, 2006, 9:22am

Global Warming Fastest In 20,000 Years And It Is Mankind's Fault
By Steve Connor
The Independent - UK
5-5-6


Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft report by the world's leading climate scientists.

The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.

A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years.

It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels caused by man-made emissions.

These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of "positive feedbacks" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the acidification of the oceans.

The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version is ready for publication next year.

However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail request for a password to access the area on its website.

The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the draft IPCC report.

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online, according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change and its impacts.

Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon.

"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans," it says.

"It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years.

"And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors." Since its last report in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence showing that climate change is already happening.

It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed.

"2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005)," the report says.

Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent during the warmer summer months.

"The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest Arctic year," the draft IPCC report says.

"An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation," it says.

Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure.

Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report.

"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century," the report says.

"Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise," it adds.

Evidence of climate change

* Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months.

* Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record.

* Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003.

* Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years.

* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 5, 2006, 9:41am

5 May 2006
Human Activity Driving Changes In Atmospheric Circulation

While there is widespread agreement that human activities are warming the climate, there has been little consensus on the effect this warming may have on the large scale atmospheric dynamics that shape the Earth's climate. Now, a new study has found that the principal loop of winds - known as the Walker circulation - that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific is slowing down and causing the climate to drift towards a more El Niño-like state. The Walker circulation spans almost half the circumference of the Earth and affects weather patterns globally.

"The Walker circulation is fundamental to climate throughout the globe: its variations are closely linked to those of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and monsoonal circulations over adjacent continents, and variations in its intensity and structure affect climate all over the globe," explained Dr. Gabriel A. Vecchi, lead author of the study.

Vecchi, from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, said that the research team had identified a 3.5 percent weakening in the Walker circulation that has occurred since the mid-1800s. They also cite evidence that it may weaken another 10 percent by 2100. "There is an indication that the slowdown may be intensifying. The trend since World War II is larger than that over the entire record, and the long-term trend is larger than what is expected from natural climate variability," Vechi added.



Co-researcher Dr. Brian Soden said the study sends mixed signals on the future of weather events like El Niño and La Niña. "While we can't predict with certainty how the frequency or intensity of El Niño-related weather events will respond to global warming, our study does suggest that the climate as a whole is slowly moving towards a more El Niño-like state," Soden explained. "Additionally, this slowdown has modified the structure and circulation of the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is a source of nutrients to one of the most biologically productive regions of the world's oceans. This has implications to the well-being and proliferation of marine life in tropical oceans."

Source: University of Miami
Graphic courtesy of Gabriel A. Vecchi, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060404211849data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 10, 2006, 11:30am

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060509174125.htm

Source: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Posted: May 9, 2006
Tibet Provides Passage For Chemicals To Reach The Stratosphere

NASA and university researchers have found that thunderstorms over Tibet provide a main pathway for water vapor and chemicals to travel from the lower atmosphere, where human activity directly affects atmospheric composition, into the stratosphere, where the protective ozone layer resides.

Learning how water vapor reaches the stratosphere can help improve climate prediction models. Similarly, understanding the pathways that ozone-depleting chemicals can take to reach the stratosphere is essential for understanding future threats to the ozone layer, which shields Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays.

Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta; NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, performed their analysis using data from the Microwave Limb Sounder instrument on NASA’s Aura spacecraft, combined with data from NASA’s Aqua and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Missions.

The team collected more than 1,000 measurements of high concentrations of water vapor in the stratosphere over the Tibetan Plateau and the Asian monsoon region. The measurements were collected during August 2004 and August 2005, during the height of monsoon season. Through the use of wind data and NASA atmospheric models, they found the water vapor originated over Tibet, just north of the Himalayan mountain range.

The team also found that even though more thunderstorms occurred over India, the storms over Tibet transported nearly three times more water vapor into the lower stratosphere than the more frequent thunderstorms that occur over India.

"This study shows that thunderstorms over Tibet are mainly responsible for the large amount of water vapor entering the stratosphere," said Dr. Rong Fu, associate professor in Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, who led the study. "The rainfall may not be as frequent over Tibet as over the Indian monsoon area, but because Tibet is at a much higher elevation than India, the storms over Tibet are strong and penetrate very high, and send water vapor right into the stratosphere."

The study also found that the same pathway is responsible for transporting carbon monoxide, an indicator of air pollution, into the upper atmosphere.

"There's almost no carbon monoxide production in Tibet, so it's widely believed that carbon monoxide is transported to the tropopause over Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent,” Fu said. The tropopause divides the lower atmosphere from the stratosphere, and is located at an altitude of about 18 kilometers (11 miles) above Earth over the tropics and Tibet.

Fu added, "Our study finds thunderstorms over Tibet transport as much carbon monoxide to the lower stratosphere as do those over India. When long-lived pollutants are transported out of the lower atmosphere, they can move rapidly. Pollutants from Asia, for example, can wind up on the other side of the world."

The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Aura, Aqua and the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission are part of the NASA-centered international Earth Observing System, and are managed by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Aura’s Microwave Limb Sounder was built by JPL.

For more information on the Microwave Limb Sounder and Aura, visit: http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov and http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov .

For information on Aqua and the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, visit: http://aqua.nasa.gov/ and http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/ .

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 13, 2006, 7:56pm

New York warned to prepare for hurricanes
Wed May 10, 2006 8:11 AM ET

By Martinne Geller

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A hurricane with only moderate intensity could wreak havoc in New York City because it has been years since the nation's financial center faced severe weather, government forecasters warned on Tuesday.

"The first time we get hit here with a Category 2, it's going to be disastrous," said meteorologist Michael Wyllie of the National Weather Service, referring to the scale used to rate hurricane strength.

Wyllie said powerful storms have missed New York in recent years, unlike parts of the Gulf Coast, where periodic storms "thin out the trees and the buildings."

Gloria, the last big storm to hit the New York area, caused about $900 million in economic losses along the East Coast in 1985, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"It's not like we can all run down to Home Depot and pick up these two-by-fours to board up windows," said John Koch, lead forecaster at the NWS forecast office in New York. "What we want people to do is know what they are going to do with their family and their pets."

Koch urged residents to familiarize themselves with the location of evacuation zones and make plans to have extra dry clothes, medicines, batteries, water and copies of valuable documents.

Although evacuation orders might be limited to low-lying areas, Koch said high winds could put tall buildings throughout the city at risk.

"Winds increase with height, so you're going to see much stronger wind on the 30th floor or the 50th floor of a building than you do at the surface," Koch said.

Wyllie said he expects the hurricane season, which starts June 1 and lasts until November 30, to be similar to last year, which saw an unprecedented 28 storms including Katrina.

"If there are more storms out there, odds are you have a higher chance of being hit," Koch said. "It could be this year, it could be five years from now, it could be 10 years from now."

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 20, 2006, 11:53am

17 May 2006
Equatorial Glaciers Set To Disappear In 20 Years

The equatorial icecaps in the Rwenzori Mountains, East Africa, will disappear within twenty years because of global warming, a University College London (UCL) study has found. The researchers, reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, point the finger at an increase in air temperature over the last four decades that has contributed to a substantial reduction in glacial cover.

Known as the 'Mountains of the Moon', the Rwenzori Mountains straddle the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Uganda. They are home to one of four remaining tropical ice fields outside of the Andes and are renowned for their spectacular and rare Afroalpine flora and fauna.

The Rwenzori glaciers were first surveyed a century ago when glacial cover over the entire range was estimated to be 6.5 square kilometers. But the survey conducted by UCL with researchers from Makerere University, Uganda and the Ugandan Water Resources Management Department, show that some glaciers are receding tens of meters each year, and that the area covered by glaciers halved between 1987 and 2003.

With less than one square kilometer of glacier ice remaining, the glaciers are expected to disappear entirely within the next twenty years. The UCL researchers found that over the last forty years, there was a clear trend toward increased air temperature around the Rwenzori Mountains without significant changes in precipitation.

"Recession of these tropical glaciers sends an unambiguous message of a changing climate in this region of the tropics," said UCL's Richard Taylor. "Considering the continent's negligible contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions, it is a terrible irony that Africa, according to current predictions, will be most affected by climate change," he added.

The glacial recession is not expected to have a significant effect on alpine river flow due to the small size of the remaining glaciers. However, it remains unclear how the projected loss of the glaciers will affect tourism and the traditional belief systems of the local BaKonzo people. Nzururu - the local word for snow and ice - is the father of the spirits who are responsible for human life. Additionally, the rise in air temperature may trigger dramatic increases in malaria in the East African Highlands, as mosquitoes are able to colonize previously inhospitable highland areas.

Source: University College London

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060417014356data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 22, 2006, 9:41am

Where have all the icebergs gone?
The British-funded Ice Patrol is usually busy in May, protecting shipping from rogue bergs. But it's all gone alarmingly quiet this year, as Michael Park discovers
Published: 21 May 2006



A mere 1,000 feet above the frigid waters of the North Atlantic the debate began in earnest. The pilot of the US Coast Guard's sturdy C130 plane believed the object which had appeared on both of the plane's radars was an iceberg. One of two young but experienced ice observers on board disagreed.

To definitively identify the target, the plane started to descend to a mettle-testing 400 feet. This was part of the mission, and what is demanded of the staff of the International Ice Patrol (IIP) by the hundreds of ships that traverse this relatively small part of the ocean and rely on its findings for their safety.

Ever since the Titanic struck what was actually one of more than 350 icebergs drifting amid the northern Atlantic shipping lanes in April, 1912, the US Coast Guard has undertaken annual iceberg patrols to help protect passenger and freight vessels that sail through the congested waters east of Canada and down the east coast of America.

"Before we started there were 113 recorded sinkings caused by icebergs," says Michael Hicks, the present Commander of the International Ice Patrol. "There have only been 19 since (omega) the Titanic sank, and all of those were vessels that chose to ignore our warnings."

In the past, in a single year, more than 2,000 icebergs have been spotted, tracked and on occasion ineffectually bombed by aircraft, in order to prevent calamitous disasters at sea. Yet in other years, including this one, few if any bergs manage to migrate south from the Arctic Circle. If the unidentified floating object below the approaching plane is in fact an iceberg, it will be the first one seen in the shipping lanes since May 2005 ­ a situation perplexing to oceanographers but emboldening to those shouting loudly about the effects of climate change.

"I've been trying to understand the variability for years," says Don Murphy the IIP's veteran oceanographer. "And every year that goes by I get another year of experience and realise how little we really know."

After a century of study, there are still many unknowns regarding the movement of icebergs and the reasons for the wide variability in the number that mischievously make it into the 300-mile-long, 60-mile-wide area of the North Atlantic that mariners refer to as "iceberg alley" due to the number of bergs pushed through this part of the ocean by currents and underwater topographical features.

What is certain is that any that do make it this far south will be nearing both the end of a three-year journey and their existence.

"When the bergs get this far south, their days are numbered," Hicks says, explaining that the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream cause all icebergs to ultimately melt, ensuring one less threat to ships and one less iceberg for the IIP to monitor. What formed from 1,000-year-old ice atop the majestic ice cap in Greenland ends up becoming an indistinguishable part of the ocean and a sterile statistic in the Coast Guard's table of meddlesome bergs.

The International Ice Patrol is a unique organisation. A division of the US Coast Guard, it is funded by 17 countries including the UK, and is the only world body that constantly monitors icebergs that stray into the Atlantic shipping lanes parallel to and south of Newfoundland. While the Canadian Ice Service is dedicated to monitoring sea ice and icebergs in Canadian waters, and the Danish Meteorological Service is concerned with bergs around its territory of Greenland, the IIP has, since its inception in 1912, been charged with alerting cross-Atlantic traffic to any iceberg threats.

"Almost immediately after the Titanic sank the US Navy assigned two cruisers to the Grand Banks to patrol for icebergs and to let the ships know where they were," says Hicks. "The following year the US Navy could no longer spare the ships to do that so the Revenue Cutter Service, which was the predecessor to the US Coast Guard, stepped up. The UK actually asked the US government, since we had started doing this, to continue and, with the exception of the World War years, we have been doing it ever since."

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (Solas), a major treaty governing merchant ships, mandates that all vessels crossing the North Atlantic during the months when there is a threat from icebergs ­ usually February to July ­ receive and read the IIP's notifications. However, they are not compelled to act on them, hence the 19 sinkings that have occurred since 1913.

An iceberg (technically a piece of ice longer than 45 feet at the waterline) has to make it past 48 degrees north ­ a line of latitude that passes through northern France in Europe ­ before the IIP count it as having the potential to interfere with shipping (the Titanic sank just south of 42 degrees north, and icebergs have been spotted in waters as far south as those parallel to Washington DC).

Surprisingly it wasn't until 1946 that the Coast Guard started using aircraft to supplement its ships in the search for these monstrous and potentially lethal pieces of ice.

"Up until that time it was just cutters," says Hicks. "Generally they would assign two or three cutters and they would take turns going out from Halifax or St John's, finding the southernmost iceberg and staying with it and radioing their position to ships coming across the Atlantic."

The IIP stopped using ships in 1973, and has relied on aeroplanes ever since.

"The C130 aircraft can cover a much larger area in a lot less time," says Hicks. "They also have the capacity to carry side-looking airborne radar which is an old but very effective radar system. It was designed to detect oil spills but it works pretty well for icebergs."

The planes, which conduct 12 or more missions each month, normally fly for six to eight hours at an altitude of between 5,500 and 8,000 feet, yet because of the weather, even at that height, the sea is visible only 30 per cent of the time.

"We will descend as low as 400 feet if we detect a target on the radar that we can't identify and the cloud base is low," Hicks explains. "Hopefully we will see the surface by that point."

Once an iceberg has been detected, its size and location are plotted on to a map which is marked with the limits of all known ice. The map is then disseminated to all ships crossing the Atlantic (more than a dozen a day) and is posted on the IIP's website. To ensure a margin of safety, the line depicting the limits of all known ice is usually drawn 30 miles south of the actual last known position of an iceberg.

When the planes aren't flying, the maps are still updated every 24 hours.

"We forecast where we think the bergs are going using a computer model," Hicks says. "That model uses ocean currents, winds, water temperature and waves to predict where the iceberg is going to drift and how long it is going to take to melt."

Hicks admits the model is not flawless.

"In the short term it does a pretty good job," he says. "But as you go beyond six or seven days it becomes less reliable, just like a weather forecast, so that's why we patrol so often." Studies (omega) show that icebergs generally drift distances of no greater than 12 miles in a day.

With three fifths of this year's ice season already over, not a single berg has been spotted within 350 miles of the shipping lanes. Only once before, in 1966, has the IIP recorded zero icebergs in a season. There is no question the low number of bergs is unusual.

"On average we expect to see about 450 icebergs a year," says Don Murphy, who explains that all of the icebergs that appear in the North Atlantic are produced by ice flowing slowly but steadily from glaciers in Greenland into the sea and breaking away. The floating chunk of frozen water is then at the mercy of ocean currents which initially carry it northwards and then westwards across to Canada's Baffin Bay before the Labrador Current pushes it southwards.

"The currents are weak and variable along Baffin island so every iceberg's southward track is characterised by long periods of no motion," says Murphy. "Most will go aground on a pinnacle or submerged mountain around the edge of the continental shelf and you have to wait for them to deteriorate until finally they can float off the bottom and can continue their path. Then boom! They get stuck again or get driven so far into a bay that they never make it out and waves destroy them."

Murphy says that the ones that do make it ­ less than one per cent of all the bergs produced annually ­ are "the ones with a shape that ensures they aren't as sensitive to the wind's effects so they stay offshore or have enough mass that even if they are grounded for a while, when they float again, they are large enough that they still bring a substantial amount of ice with them."

Those icebergs that survive all the way from the glaciers to the Grand Banks take up to three years to make the 1,500-mile journey. Once there they will be tracked by the IIP and left to disintegrate in the ocean. However, from shortly after the Titanic sank and up until the 1960s, there was a belief that icebergs could, and should, be destroyed.

"It was thought that if you shot a shell at an iceberg that the ice was so brittle that it would just disintegrate," Murphy says. "The US Navy attempted it but all they did was loosen a basketful of ice. Then they decided to float mines against the sides of the bergs and blow them up but that didn't work either."

Further attempts were made after the Second World War using larger bombs. "They arranged to drop 1,000lb bombs on an iceberg. They hit it 17 times over a six-day period but the end result was an insignificant change in the size of the berg so they gave up. It was a silly idea and it was abandoned; the ocean does the job perfectly."

Icebergs always succumb to warm water and warm weather but now there is considerable debate as to whether climate change is playing any part in the fate or future of these floating photogenic white sculptures.

"There is no doubt in my mind that major climate change is happening," says Murphy who has been a professional oceanographer for 22 years. "Studies in Greenland show that the glaciers are moving twice as fast as before. That means a lot of production of ice. My expectation has always been if the Greenland glaciers started moving faster there would be increased production [of icebergs] for decades and there should be an increase in the number of icebergs into the shipping lanes. That was my model. But the last couple of years that hasn't happened, and I'm having a hard time understanding what is going on except that there are complicating factors having to do with increased storms. Maybe the destruction processes dominate over the production processes."

The main destruction process is wave action. Icebergs that run aground are the most vulnerable to sustained wave attack. In past years large concentrations of sea ice have been thought to help icebergs remain afloat and prevent erosion from waves.

In 2005, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, sea-ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and this year the IIP have noticed "very little ­ although not an absolute minimum" level of sea-ice conditions. Yet a computer model linking sea-ice levels to the number of icebergs making it into the shipping lanes has performed "horribly" according to Murphy.

So while climate change could be expected to bring about an increase in the number of icebergs being forced into the ocean, its effect in reducing the level of sea ice through increased sea temperatures could equally mean that those icebergs liquefy long before they reach any areas of concern.

Yet, Murphy points out, that does not explain the huge discrepancy in the number of icebergs recorded in years before climate change was an issue: eg, 15 icebergs in 1952; 1,500 in 1972. After thoroughly studying and analysing data from as far back as 1900, Murphy can find no significant or consistent pattern in the number of icebergs making it into the shipping lanes.

"It's a very complicated system and there are a lot of moving parts," he says, but he claims some people are eager to ascribe meaning to the figures.

"Back in the mid-1990s, when we had thousands of icebergs, I got a call from Japanese TV who wanted to do a story on us because they believed the large number of icebergs was indicative of global warming," he says. "Then, in 1999, we had only 22 icebergs and I got a call from a European TV company who wanted to do a story because they were certain that the fact that there were only 22 bergs in the shipping lanes was a clear indication of global warming."

Murphy himself is reluctant to draw any conclusions from the changing number of icebergs. Commander Hicks also believes the century-long variability precludes any simple answers.

"There would have to be a decade of consistently light or consistently heavy years to say something is happening here and we haven't seen that," he says. Nevertheless, only 11 icebergs were spotted in the shipping lanes last year and they remain even more elusive this year.

This makes the debate on board the low-flying C130 all the more intense. As the plane continues its descent through the clouds, seagulls are spotted atop the floating white object. At 400 feet above the churning ocean, when the flight crew and the ice observers can all see the object in detail through thick Plexiglas windows, they realise it is, disappointingly, an inverted, dead Northern Right whale.

"We'll keep looking," says Hicks. "We know there are icebergs out there and maybe some will make it south before July." If they do, the International Ice Patrol will certainly count them but they will happily leave it to others to decide upon the significance of the number.

Chilling facts The truth about ice loss and global warming
By Adam Jacques

140 cubic miles The amount of overall ice mass lost from the Greenland ice sheet in 2005, enough to fill Loch Ness 70 times over.
5 degrees The average air temperature increase in the Arctic over the last 100 years.
60% The increase in ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet since 1996.
22ft The rise in sea levels if the Greenland ice sheet melted, which would deluge Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and most of London.
14% The drop in Arctic sea ice since the 1970s.
20% The decrease in the polar bear population in Canada's western Hudson Bay in the last 17 years, due to loss of sea ice.
10 The number of years since 1988 that have been the hottest on record.
30 How many times faster greenhouse gases are being released compared to the last period of extreme global warming.
$150bn The cost to the world's economies of fully implementing the Kyoto agreement ­ the benefits of which would not begin to be felt for 100 years.
0 tonnes The amount of Arctic ice that will be left during the summer months, within 80 years.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article548824.ece

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 22, 2006, 10:02am

Scientists See Arctic Melt Passing 'Tipping Point'
Meltdown Fear As Arctic Ice Cover Falls To Record Winter Low
The Guardian - UK
5-19-6



Record amounts of the Arctic ocean failed to freeze during the recent winter, new figures show, spelling disaster for wildlife and strengthening concerns that the region is locked into a destructive cycle of irreversible climate change.

Satellite measurements show the area covered by Arctic winter sea ice reached an all-time low in March, down some 300,000 square kilometres on last year -an area bigger than the UK.

Scientists say the decline highlights an alarming new trend, with recovery of the ice in winter no longer sufficient to compensate for increased melting in the summer. If the cycle continues, the Arctic ocean could lose all of its ice much earlier than expected, possibly by 2030.

Walt Meier, a researcher at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, which collected the figures, said: "It's a pretty stark drop. In the winter the ice tends to be pretty stable, so the last three years, with this steady decline, really stick out."

Experts are worried because a long-term slow decline of ice around the north pole seems to have sharply accelerated since 2003, raising fears that the region may have passed one of the "tipping points" in global warming. In this scenario, warmer weather melts ice and drives temperatures higher because the dark water beneath absorbs more of the sun's radiation. This could make global warming quickly run out of control.

Dr. Meier said there was "a good chance" the Arctic tipping point has been reached. "People have tried to think of ways we could get back to where we were. We keep going further and further into the hole, and it's getting
harder and harder to get out of it."

The Arctic is rapidly becoming the clearest demonstration of the effects of mankind's impact on the global climate. The temperature is rising twice as fast as the rest of the planet and the region is expected to warm by a further 4C-7C by 2100. The summer and winter ice levels are the lowest since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and almost certainly the lowest since local people began keeping records around 1900.

The pace of decline since 2003, if continued, would see the Arctic totally ice-free in summer within 30 years - though few scientists would stake their reputations on a long-term trend drawn from only three years.

Experts at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California think the situation could be even worse. They are about to publish the results of computer simulations that show the current rate of melting, combined with increased access for warmer Pacific water, could make the summertime Arctic ice-free within a decade. Dr. Meier said: "For 800,000 to a million years, at least some of the Arctic has been covered by ice throughout the year. That's an indication that, if we are heading for an ice-free Arctic, it's a really dramatic change and something that is unprecedented almost within the entire record of human species."

The winter ice has declined all around the region - bad news for polar bears, which spend summer on land before returning to the ice in spring to catch food.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on May 23, 2006, 9:15am

23 May 2006
Feedback Loop Puts The Heat On Climate Predictions

Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California believe they can quantify the effects of climate feedback-loops using past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels as a guide. Worryingly, their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

Researchers Margaret Torn and John Harte, whose paper appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used ice cores to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane (two of the principal greenhouse gases) that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on.

Torn and Harte suggest that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from human activities. "If the past is any guide, then when our anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, it will alter earth system processes, resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming," said Torn.

The researchers say their work provides an answer to climate-skeptics who have argued that uncertainties in climate change models make it equally possible that future temperature increases could be smaller or larger than what is feared. "A rigorous investigation of the uncertainties in climate change prediction reveals that there is a higher risk that we will experience more severe, not less severe, climate change than is currently forecast," the authors contend in their paper.

Current climate projections do not take into account additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane released when rising temperatures trigger ecological and chemical responses, such as warmer oceans giving off more carbon dioxide, or warmer soils decomposing faster, liberating ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. This inability to quantify the impact of Nature's responses in the face of overwhelming human input is the chief weakness of current models, according to Torn and Harte, who believe they are able to provide this critical information by examining the paleo-climate data stored in the ice cores. "Paleo data can provide us with an estimate of the greenhouse gas increases that are a natural consequence of global warming," said Torn. "In the absence of human activity, these greenhouse gas increases are the dominant feedback mechanism."

The data recorded in the Vostok ice core revealed that large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by initial warming. "Our results reinforce the fact that every bit of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere now is committing us to higher global temperatures in the future and we are already near the highest temperatures of the past 700,000 years," Torn said. "At this point, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely critical."

Interestingly, the authors say that the feedback loop from greenhouse gas concentrations also has a reverse effect, in that reduced atmospheric levels can enhance the cooling of global temperatures. But Harte is not overly optimistic. "If we reduce emissions so much that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide actually starts to come down and the global temperature also starts to decrease, then the feedback would work for us and speed the recovery," he explained. "However, if we reduce emissions by an amount that greatly reduces the rate at which the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increases, but don't cut emissions back to the point where the carbon dioxide level actually decreases, then the positive feedback still works against us."

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060423004015data_trunc_sys.shtml

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 3, 2006, 10:36am

North Pole Looked Like Paradise
Associated Press 15:20 PM May, 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hot spot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much-warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

And what a watery, swampy world it must have been.

"Imagine a world where there are dense sequoia trees and cypress trees like in Florida that ring the Arctic Ocean," said Pagani, a member of the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition that conducted the research.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it. Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees. So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North. Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island. "It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

It's enough to make Santa Claus break into a sweat.

The 74-degree temperature, based on core samples which act as a climatic time capsule, was probably the year-round average, but because data is so limited it might also be just the summertime average, researchers said.

What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide -- more than four times current levels -- can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

And the new research also gave scientists the idea that a simple fern may have helped pull Earth from a hothouse to an icehouse by sucking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, this natural solution to global warming was not exactly quick: It took about a million years.

With all that heat and massive freshwater lakes forming in the Arctic, a fern called Azolla started growing and growing. Azolla, still found in warm regions today, grew so deep, so wide that eventually it started sucking up carbon dioxide, Brinkhuis theorized. And that helped put the cool back in the Arctic.

Bowen said he has a hard time accepting that part of the research, but Brinkhuis said the studies show tons upon tons of thick mats of Azolla covered the Arctic and moved south.

"This could actually contribute to push the world to a cooling mode," Brinkhuis said, but only after it got hotter first and then it would take at least 800,000 years to cool back down. It's not something to look forward to, he said.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/1,71042-0.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 3, 2006, 11:12am

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060602172301.htm

Source: University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: June 2, 2006
Where Climate Is Made In A Greenhouse World

New scientific results for the Late Cretaceous greenhouse indicate radically different climatic mechanisms operating about 75-90 million years ago compared to the ones that control today's climate. The study, published on 29 May 2006 in "Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology" as part of a special issue on "Causes and Consequence of Marine Organic Carbon Burial Through Time" by Sascha Floegel from the IFM-GEOMAR in Kiel/Germany and Thomas Wagner from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne/UK aims to identify the main 'climate kitchen' in a world with about 5-9°C warmer global temperatures than today.

The researchers focus their interest on the causal relationships and feedbacks between the tropics and higher latitudes. Using marine geological records and data from global paleoclimate simulations they identify a previously unrecognized link between higher latitude climate dynamics and tropical African climate, the latter leading to exceptionally high burial of organic carbon in the deep tropical Atlantic.

Marine geological record show that enhanced burial of organic carbon in the deep sea was confined to short time envelops of about 5 thousand years that reoccurred over millions of years at a regular pattern (see Beckmann and co-workers, published 8 September 2005 in Nature 437).

Climate modelling is one key technique to identify and understand the larger-scale mechanisms that result in geological evidence. By varying one of Earth's orbital parameters, the precession of the equinoxes, the modelling setup used in this study provides new insights to the dynamics of global climate during past greenhouse conditions. Accordingly, changes in the amount of energy approaching the top of the atmosphere, called "insolation", finally triggered cyclic variations of the tropical water cycle in tropical Africa. Periods of enhanced precipitation and freshwater runoff then resulted in massive burial of organic carbon at the sea floor suggesting that processes in the atmosphere drive changes in the ocean.

The remaining, fundamental question on the source area(s) where cyclic fluctuations in tropical water cycling and marine carbon burial were triggered was addressed using global climate simulation. Applying four different orbital configurations of one complete precession cycle the model identifies cross-latitudinal variations of atmospheric pressure systems, fluctuations in the magnitude and direction of surface winds, and associated precipitation and runoff patterns.

Previously unrecognized, the model identifies the strongest variations in atmospheric pressure above the South Atlantic at mid-southern latitudes between 25–55°S. Establishment of an atmospheric teleconnection between this area and tropical Africa, however, is limited to one specific orbital configuration, which lasted for about 5 thousand years and caused strongest climate contrasts in a seasonal cycle.

These new results challenge current notions on role of the tropics as main driver of Cretaceous climate. They rather support the conclusion that tropical climate in a greenhouse world is ultimately triggered by climate change at mid-southern latitudes, with precipitation and river discharge being the transport mechanisms.

Today the tropics control a big fraction of Earth's climate. The new findings reported here suggest that the mid-latitudes will have a much stronger impact on low latitude climate system at predicted future levels of atmospheric CO2. This conclusion has severe consequences for the future low latitude water cycle and associated nutrient and carbon fluxes to coastal areas. The latter fluxes from the continent strongly influence surface ocean productivity, O2 consumption in the water column and thus marine ecosystems, and many other processes affecting the global carbon balance.

The broader implications support substantial interaction between the water cycle and atmospheric circulation on regional and hemispheric scales during times of global warmth. As evident from this study we probably still do not realise all the relevant processes that drive future global warming. Knowing them, however, is critical to get prepared and mitigate the effects for society and ecosystems.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 3, 2006, 11:18am

The Ozone Layer's Recovering

Tue, 30 May 2006 - Over the last few decades, scientists have been tracking the depletion of the ozone layer in the Earth's atmosphere. A large hole still opens up over Antarctica, but ozone levels worldwide have stopped declining. The question is why. The relatively recent reduction of ozone-destroying gasses shouldn't make an improvement so quickly. NASA scientists think that atmospheric wind patterns could be transferring ozone around the planet, helping with the recovery. At this rate, we'll return to 1980 levels between 2030 and 2070.

Think of the ozone layer as Earth's sunglasses, protecting life on the surface from the harmful glare of the sun's strongest ultraviolet rays, which can cause skin cancer and other maladies.

People were understandably alarmed, then, in the 1980s when scientists noticed that manmade chemicals in the atmosphere were destroying this layer. Governments quickly enacted an international treaty, called the Montreal Protocol, to ban ozone-destroying gases such as CFCs then found in aerosol cans and air conditioners.

Today, almost 20 years later, reports continue of large ozone holes opening over Antarctica, allowing dangerous UV rays through to Earth's surface. Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.

Listening to this news, you might suppose that little progress has been made. You'd be wrong.

While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend. For the last 9 years, worldwide ozone has remained roughly constant, halting the decline first noticed in the 1980s.

The question is why? Is the Montreal Protocol responsible? Or is some other process at work?

It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: "The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer" by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen.

Sorting out cause and effect is difficult, but a group of NASA and university researchers may have made some headway. Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.

Lead author Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology explains: "We measured ozone concentrations at different altitudes using satellites, balloons and instruments on the ground. Then we compared our measurements with computer predictions of ozone recovery, [calculated from real, measured reductions in CFCs]." Their calculations took into account the known behavior of the sunspot cycle (which peaked in 2001), seasonal changes in the ozone layer, and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations, a type of stratospheric wind pattern known to affect ozone.

What they found is both good news and a puzzle.

The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The puzzle: In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes.

The "something else" could be atmospheric wind patterns. "Winds carry ozone from the equator where it is made to higher latitudes where it is destroyed. Changing wind patterns affect the balance of ozone and could be boosting the recovery below 18 km," says Newchurch. This explanation seems to offer the best fit to the computer model of Yang et al. The jury is still out, however; other sources of natural or manmade variability may yet prove to be the cause of the lower-stratosphere's bonus ozone.

Whatever the explanation, if the trend continues, the global ozone layer should be restored to 1980 levels sometime between 2030 and 2070. By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/ozone_layer_healing.html?3052006

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 3, 2006, 11:45am

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will have bizarre effects such as:

News in Science - Poison ivy menace grows as Earth warms - 31/05/2006

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1651606.htm

Poison ivy menace grows as Earth warms
Anne Harding
Reuters

Wednesday, 31 May 2006



Add another item to the list of health threats posed by global warming: poison ivy that's more poisonous, and lots more of it.

When scientists increased CO2 to the levels expected to be seen at the middle of this century, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) grew more than twice as fast.

The plants also produced more of a type of urushiol, the substance that causes an allergic reaction, the researchers report online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This is bad news for those of us who suffer from poison ivy," says lead author Dr Jacqueline Mohan of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Mohan and her team studied plots of a forested area surrounded by PVC pipes that pumped out CO2, allowing them evaluate the effects of the greenhouse gas in a real-life forest environment.

They compared poison ivy growth over a six-year period in three CO2-enriched areas and three areas with normal air.

Under the high-CO2 conditions, the poison ivy plants grew 150% faster every year than the control plants. The plants also contained 153% more of the urushiol compound that causes an allergic reaction.

More than 80% of the world's population will develop an itchy rash if exposed to poison ivy.

Over the past two decades, Mohan notes, scientists have observed increased worldwide growth in vines, which is in some cases choking out the regrowth of trees.

Vines benefit from extra CO2, she explains, as the gas fuels photosynthesis. Unlike trees, vines have to devote relatively little energy to growing wood, and can instead pump the extra photosynthesis energy into leaf production.

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 9, 2006, 11:01pm

Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution, Study Says
Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News
June 8, 2006

German birds are changing migration patterns. Canadian red squirrels are reproducing earlier in the year. Mosquitoes in Newfoundland remain active longer into August.

Traditionally, scientists have viewed such changes simply as behavior modifications in the face of a changing environment—in this case, global warming.

But scientists say these shifts provide mounting evidence that for some animals, global warming is sparking genetic changes that are altering the ecosystems we live in.

The effect is most striking in the northern latitudes, where climates are becoming more and more like those in the south, researchers say.

"Over the past 40 years, animal species have been extending their range toward the poles, and populations have been migrating, developing, or reproducing earlier," said William Bradshaw, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

These shifts aren't simply a response to warmer summers but instead reflect recent and rapid changes to the climate at large, Bradshaw and colleague Christina Holzapfel argue in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

"The emphasis on summer temperatures is just plain wrong," Holzapfel said.

"Midsummer temperatures in Florida aren't all that different from Fairbanks, Alaska. This is about lengthening growing season and the timing of seasonal events."

Warming and Evolution

Many animals use changing daylight as a signal for when to mate, migrate, or hibernate.

But as global warming makes Alaska more like Mississippi, the cues animals once relied upon will no longer match the climate.

Bradshaw and Holzapfel cite as an example the European blackcap, a bird that traditionally breeds in Germany and then migrates southwest for the winter to Spain and Portugal.

Some of these birds have begun to migrate west to England, which now has a suitable winter climate, the researchers say.

In the spring, these British birds can beat their Spanish cousins back to Germany, getting dibs on the best nesting sites.

Moreover, Bradshaw and Holzapfel note, the east-west migration pattern is instinctive, indicating that it's now embedded in the British birds' genes.

The upshot, Holzapfel says, is that some animals will be able to adapt to continued climate change, while others will have considerable difficulty.

"Large animals like polar bears will probably do very poorly," she said.

"They have a long life cycle, so it takes them relatively long to adapt genetically."

Over time, she said, "[ecological] communities will become completely different."

Animals and Natural Cues

Other ecologists agree.

The matching of organisms' life cycles to their environments is essential for survival, says Steven Running, forestry scientist at the University of Montana in Missoula.

Global warming, he says, is altering the optimal time for temperature-sensitive activities without changing the daylight cycle in any given place.

The result is a mismatch between the altered climate and the genetically programmed cues upon which organisms currently rely.

The ability of plants and animals to evolve in the face of these changes, Running said via email, "may well define what species are winners and losers in adapting to rapidly changing climates."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060608-global-warming.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 9, 2006, 11:02pm

Did Global Warming cause the Martian catastrophe?

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 12, 2006, 10:39am

Makes you wonder doesn't it:

NASA shelves climate satellites
Environmental science may suffer

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | June 9, 2006

NASA is canceling or delaying a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth's changing climate and environment.

The space agency has shelved a $200 million satellite mission headed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor that was designed to measure soil moisture -- a key factor in helping scientists understand the impact of global warming and predict droughts and floods. The Deep Space Climate Observatory, intended to observe climate factors such as solar radiation, ozone, clouds, and water vapor more comprehensively than existing satellites, also has been canceled.

And in its 2007 budget, NASA proposes significant delays in a global precipitation measuring mission to help with weather predictions, as well as the launch of a satellite designed to increase the timeliness and accuracy of severe weather forecasts and improve climate models.

The changes come as NASA prioritizes its budget to pay for completion of the International Space Station and the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020 -- a goal set by President Bush that promises a more distant and arguably less practical scientific payoff. Ultimately, scientists say, the delays and cancellations could make hurricane predictions less accurate, create gaps in long-term monitoring of weather, and result in less clarity about the earth's hydrological systems, which play an integral part in climate change.

``Today, when the need for information about the planet is more important than ever, this process of building understanding through increasingly powerful observations . . . is at risk of collapse," said Berrien Moore III, director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire.

Moore is cochairman of a National Research Council committee that will recommend NASA's future earth science agenda later this year. It is unclear, however, whether NASA will follow those recommendations.

``NASA has canceled, scaled back, or delayed all of the planned earth observing missions," he said.

Despite NASA's best-known role as a space agency, one of its key missions is to study the earth. Scientists collect data through ground- and space-based observatories using instruments that can sense heat and through which they can see with exquisite detail from many miles up. In recent years, these missions have increased in importance and visibility as global temperatures rise and scientists rush to better understand the phenomenon and the role of humans in it.

While NASA is proposing similarly deep cuts to other important science programs such as astrobiology -- the search for life in space -- the earth science mission cancellations and delays take on greater significance, some scientists say, given recent allegations by a top NASA researcher and other government scientists that the Bush administration tried to silence their warnings about global warming.

While scientists interviewed for this story said they do not believe the earth science cuts are a deliberate attempt to stall science on climate change, they say it comes at a time when more research, not less, is needed. NASA's earth science budget also has sustained a prior round of cuts during the last two years.

NASA, which projects its budget five years out, intends to cut the overall science budget about $3.1 billion below program projections over that time. In 2004, the overall science budget was projected to grow from about $5.5 billion to about $7 billion in 2008. The new projections provide for $5.38 billion in 2008, and less than the cost of inflation after that, according to a report issued last month by the Space Studies Board, a National Research Council committee charged with analyzing NASA's science program. The exact amount of cuts to earth science programs could not be determined because they are not listed separately in the budget proposal.

A NASA earth science official acknowledged that the proposed earth science cuts are steep, and said the agency is attempting to replace some of the funding. He noted the satellite data are used by other agencies, from the military to the US Department of Agriculture. But given competing priorities, there is little chance all the money will be replaced, he said.

``Right now, we are going through the program carefully looking for efficiencies to restore some of these cuts," Bryant Cramer, acting director of NASA's earth science division, said in an interview. ``We are keenly aware of the shortfall, of the necessary research that should be funded, and we are trying to respond. I can't tell you a solution yet."

Almost every planned earth studying mission, all that have some contribution to understanding global warming, has been affected. The $100 million Deep Space Climate Observatory , already built, was canceled earlier this year. First proposed by then-Vice President Al Gore in the 1990s, the satellite was planned to give researchers a continuous picture of the sunlit surface of the earth and allow the first direct measurements of how much sunlight is absorbed and emitted, key information that could serve as an indicator of global warming.

The Global Precipitation Measurement mission, designed to record rain, snow, and ice fall more accurately, has been delayed 2 1/2 years. It is meant to replace another satellite whose mission was extended last year. Now, scientists do not believe the older satellite will last until the Global Precipitation mission is launched, creating a big gap in data collection for weather prediction and climate modeling.

Another key satellite, the $10 billion National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, is over budget and has been delayed at least 18 months. And while NASA previously told earth scientists to start developing proposals for other earth-centered missions to be chosen in 2004, no such round of proposals will be analyzed until 2008.

Scientists at area universities say that they are worried most about a proposed 20 percent cut to research and analysis in the earth science budget, which funds smaller-scale projects. Many of these projects analyze data from satellites and help with long-term monitoring of earth systems. The cuts also may have a chilling effect on attracting and retaining university scientists, who realize their research could be only partially funded -- or not at all.

``Missions can be delayed a year or two, but the most urgent issue right now is to restore the cuts to research and analysis," said Ronald G. Prinn, director of the Center for Global Change Science at MIT. ``We need to understand the climate system much better than we do."

NASA's earth science program was fairly robust until about two years ago, when several missions were canceled or delayed -- a situation that has made the current round of cuts all the more painful, scientists said. Last month, a report by the Space Studies Board concluded that the space and earth science program is neither robust nor sustainable.

``There is a widespread sense that earth sciences has been suffering more than its fair share," said Drew Shindell, a physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Beth Daley can be reached by e-mail at bdaley@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/artic....ate_satellites/

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 13, 2006, 8:07am

If you still doubtful about the catastrophic effects of the continuing changes in climate:

Polar bears turn cannibal

June 13, 2006 - 10:39AM

Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea may be turning to cannibalism because longer seasons without ice keep them from getting to their natural food, a new study by American and Canadian scientists has found.

The study reviewed three examples of polar bears preying on each other from January to April 2004 north of Alaska and western Canada, including the first-ever reported killing of a female in a den shortly after it gave birth.

Polar bears feed primarily on ringed seals and use sea ice for feeding, mating and giving birth.

Polar bears kill each other for population regulation, dominance, and reproductive advantage, the study said.

Killing for food seems to be less common, said the study's principal author, Steven Amstrup of the US Geological Survey Alaska Science Centre.

"During 24 years of research on polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region of northern Alaska and 34 years in northwestern Canada, we have not seen other incidents of polar bears stalking, killing, and eating other polar bears," the scientists said.

Environmentalists contend shrinking polar ice due to global warming may lead to the disappearance of polar bears before the end of the century.

The Centre for Biological Diversity of Joshua Tree, California, in February 2005 petitioned the federal government to list polar bears as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Cannibalism demonstrates the effect on bears, said Kassie Siegal, lead author of the petition.

"It's very important new information," she said. "It shows in a really graphic way how severe the problem of global warming is for polar bears."

Deborah Williams of Alaska Conservation Solutions, a group aimed at pursuing solutions for climate change, said the study represented the "bloody fingerprints" of global warming.

"This is not a Coca-Cola commercial," she said, referring to animated polar bears used in advertising for the soft drink giant.

"This represents the brutal downside of global warming."

The predation study was published in an online version of the journal Polar Biology on April 27. Amstrup said print publication would follow.

Researchers in the northern spring of 2004 found more bears in the eastern portion of the Alaska Beaufort Sea to be in poorer condition than bears in areas to the west and north.

Researchers discovered the first kill in January 2004. A male bear had pounced on a den, killed a female and dragged it 75 metres away, where it ate part of the carcass.

Females are about half the size of males.

"In the face of the den's outer wall were deep impressions of where the predatory bear had pounded its forepaws to collapse the den roof, just as polar bears collapse the snow over ringed seal lairs," the paper said.

"From the tracks, it appeared that the predatory bear broke through the roof of the den, held the female in place while inflicting multiple bites to the head and neck. When the den collapsed, two cubs were buried, and suffocated, in the snow rubble."

In April 2004, while following bear footprints on sea ice near Herschel Island, Yukon Territory, scientists discovered the partially eaten carcass of an adult female.

Footprints indicated it had been with a cub.

The male did not follow the cub, indicating it had killed for food instead of breeding.

A few days later, Canadian researchers found the remains of a yearling that had been stalked and killed by a predatory bear, the scientists said.

AP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/polar....9964508902.html

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 17, 2006, 2:43am

China's toxic brew hits its neighbours


Keith Bradsher and David Barboza in Hanjing, China
June 17, 2006

ONE of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.

In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, South Korea, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. A US satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the west coast of the US.

Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into human lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad.

The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialised countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.

The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops.

The sulfur pollution is so pervasive as to have an extraordinary side effect that is helping the rest of the world, but only temporarily: it actually slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space.

But the cooling effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and deliver another hefty kick to global warming.

A warmer climate could lead to rising sea levels, the spread of tropical diseases in previously temperate climates, crop failures in some regions and the extinction of many plant and animal species, especially those in polar or alpine areas.

Coal is a double-edged sword: the new Chinese economy's black gold and the fragile environment's dark cloud. China already uses more coal than the US, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 per cent in each of the past two years.

Large areas of north-central China have been devastated by the spectacular growth of the local coal industry. Severe pollution extends across Shanxi province, which produces even more coal.

Not long ago, the city of Datong, 260 kilometres west of Beijing and long the nation's coal capital, was branded one of the world's most-polluted cities.

Desert dust and particulate matter in the city has been known to force the pollution index into warning territory, above 300, which means people should stay indoors. On December 28, the index hit 350.

"The pollution is worst during the winter," said Ji Youping, a former coalminer who now works with a local environmental protection agency. "Datong gets very black. Even during the daytime, people drive with their lights on."

Of China's 10 most polluted cities, four, including Datong, are in Shanxi province. The coal-mining operations have damaged waterways and scarred the land. Because of intense underground mining, thousands of hectares are prone to sinking, and hundreds of villages are blackened with coal waste.

There is a Dickensian feel to much of the region and there are growing concerns about the impact of this coal boom on the environment. The Asian Development Bank says it is financing pollution control programs in Shanxi because the number of people suffering from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases has soared over the past 20 years. Yet even after years of clean-up efforts factories belch black smoke. Beijing has vowed to close the foulest factories, and shut down illegal mines, where some of the worst safety and environmental hazards are concentrated.

For all the worries about pollution from China, climate experts are loath to criticise the country without pointing out that the average American consumes more energy and is responsible for the release of 10 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Chinese.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/chinas-....e#c ontentSwap1

---

Re: Climate Collapse
Post by bigbunny on Jun 22, 2006, 10:24am

Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060410160525.htm

Source: European Space Agency

Posted: April 10, 2006

Satellite Instrument Helps Tackle Mysteries Of Ozone-eating Clouds

Polar stratospheric clouds have become the focus of many research projects in recent years due to the discovery of their role in ozone depletion, but essential aspects of these clouds remain a mystery. MIPAS, an instrument onboard ESA’s Envisat, is allowing scientists to gain information about these clouds necessary for modelling ozone loss.



"The Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) is unique in its possibilities to detect polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) since it is the first instrument with the ability to observe these clouds continuously over the polar regions especially during the polar night," Michael Höpfner of Germany’s Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH said.

Using data collected by MIPAS, a German-designed instrument that observes the atmosphere in middle infrared range, Höpfner and other scientists discovered a belt of nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) PSCs developing in the polar night over Antarctica in 2003 about one month after the first PSCs, which were composed of water crystals, were detected.

There are two classifications of PSCs – Type I clouds contain hydrated droplets of nitric acid and sulphuric acid, while Type II clouds consist of relatively pure water ice crystals.

The presence of NAT was detected because of MIPAS’ ability to map the atmospheric concentrations of more than 20 trace gases, including ozone as well as the pollutants that attack it.
"This has been the first evidence for the existence of NAT PSCs on a large scale," Höpfner said. NAT particles, which contain three molecules of water and one molecule of nitric acid, enhance the potential for ozone destruction in polar regions.

The thinning of the ozone is caused by the presence of man-made pollutants in the atmosphere such as chlorine, originating from man-made pollutants like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). During the southern hemisphere winter, temperatures drop to very low levels causing the chemicals in the stratosphere, which is in complete darkness during the winter, to freeze and form PSCs that contain chlorine.

Now banned under the Montreal Protocol, CFCs were once widely used in aerosol cans and refrigerators – and have not vanished from the air. CFCs themselves are inert, but ultraviolet radiation high in the atmosphere breaks them down into their constituent p