Global Warming UNDENIABLE SOLID PROOF

[Sanibel]

I think the skeptic arguments are somewhat oversimplified. Yes, natural global warming cycles have occurred in the past and have swung global temperatures upwards without any input from man, but it would be unscientific to ignore the direct science involved in injecting billions of tons of man-made CO2 into the atmosphere or taking mineralized carbon from underground and putting it into the atmosphere. Yes, natural warming happened in the past, but it never happened in this scenario of man injecting underground carbon in a short period.

In my opinion it is the tail wagging the dog to suggest personal motives for science funding for global warming researchers while ignoring the personal motivation of trillion dollar industries and their interests. I would go even further to suggest the closer you get to those directly dependent on this industry the more you see these skeptic arguments. Like the case of cigarettes not being proven to cause cancer, this demographic tends to lean towards more proof.

Even if this recent trend is totally natural you can't ignore the potential exacerbating effect billions of tons of CO2 would have scientifically. This leaves the potential for the natural trend to be intensified to serious levels. If you look at Antarctic ice cores samples every major global warming cycle has been accompanied by jumps in CO2. The anti-global warming argument for this is those CO2 jumps followed temperature rises. But that doesn't make any difference, the fact stands that some significant global temperature increases were accompanied by CO2 rises whether before or after. The problem is our current CO2 level is unprecedented in ice core sample history and getting higher. So to say "some scientists say the CO2 has no appreciable effect" is to ignore firm ice core science and direct atmospheric evidence that CO2 levels have a direct relationship to global warming. Furthermore we no longer live in a world with virgin natural systems able to absorb those natural cycles. The present world is highly stressed, deforested, and overpopulated with a large human population and crops hanging on thin climate margins. To compare the two and casually imply "the world has gone through this before" is to ignore the science of this.

Snows in Baghdad is a classic example of amplitude dragging stronger weather further south as the atmosphere gains more energy from global warming. This year the Atlantic basin set a record with a major hurricane happening in 5 consecutive months. While not proof of global warming this leans more towards it than against it.

[gigabite]

The upper graph is the soho lens temperature the
lower (red) graph is the tao 0* North, 180* West bouy’s
atmospheric temperature plot.
NOTE: both graphs are the same scale and relative in position

[gigabite]

Snows in Baghdad is a classic example of amplitude dragging stronger weather further south as the atmosphere gains more energy from global warming. This year the Atlantic basin set a record with a major hurricane happening in 5 consecutive months. While not proof of global warming this leans more towards it than against it.

I am not sure how prehistoric carbon can be relate to industrial age carbon it is chemically different.

I think that the atmosphere is cooler because it measures cooler and has for a few years. Space is getting hotter so the increased amount of incoming Infrared radiation is being compensated for by increasing cloud density

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[JonathanBelles]

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Is there a reason you posted this post three times?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Is there a reason you posted this post three times?

In my unprofessional opinion, it is the strongest fact so far in evidence of man-made global warming,
that exacerbates a natural cycle. Also, when you add other combusted hydrocarbons into the equation,
that will really add heat to the earth.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Wonder if the mods can combine these threads?

[gigabite]

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

This lumps all the isotopes of carbon together. It is a case where the oversimplification strives to prove a point by lumping apples with oranges to form an combined total with out regard to the fact that the different isotopes of Carbon form CO2 but are handled by the biosphere differently.

The 13C isotope is stable and heavier than the normal form of carbon (12C), and plants tend to selectively assimilate the lighter isotopes during the photosynthetic process.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

But with the additional reactions not just with CO2 but CH4 and saturated
hydrocarbon combustion, that would add big amounts of heat to the atmosphere

[gigabite]

Greenhouse gasses do reflect heat back to the planet. The heat is from the sun the green house effect is a fraction of that. That is compensated for by cloud albedo. When cloud albedo filters more inbound radiation than the greenhouse effect reflects back the planet cools.

That is where the orbital distance from the Sun becomes a factor. The orbital mechanics of the upcoming perihelion of Jupiter is causing an gravitational slingshot with out precedent. The Dresden Codex an ancient Mayan ephemeris was computed to logical end which is the least elongation of Jupiter’s orbit. Where as it may not be the end of the world it will be at least the end of the 3000 year long elongation cycle.

The closest approach of Jupiter to the Sun is also the closest approach of the Earth to Jupiter. The significance of that is as Earth is pulled further from the Sun the greater the opportunity for low pressures to form. That will cause more clouds, snow, and a larger albedo.

I think a cool wet spell along the lines of what was going on during 1970’s should be expected to last about 30 years from 2008. The coolness of this summer was directly related to the Jupiter being at opposition in June. That only happens once every 12 years.

The Planetary Dance is giving us a chance to solve the hydrocarbon problem, although we may want to wait until the last minute before we pull the plug on the internal combustion engine.

[x-y-no]

Regarding the "soho lens temperature" ...

I've refrained from commenting on this since I don't know much about the instrument, but given that it keps being offered as evidence of increasing solar output in contradiction of the published data I've seen, I did a little searching and found this

Figure 4 plots temperatures of the MDI front window, pri-
mary lens, and secondary lens over the course of the SOHO
mission. The MDI optics package heater adjustments in 1998
November and 2002 February are clearly evident. The annual
variation in the temperatures is due to the modulation of the
incident power on MDI resulting from the orbital changes in
the Sun-to-SOHO distance. The annual peak-to-peak temper-
ature variation of the front window, primary, and secondary
lenses are 4.5 C, 2.5 C, and 2.0 C, respectively. Another im-
portant effect is the long-term change in MDI temperatures,
particularly the front window, due to changes in the instrument
thermal properties resulting from long-term space exposure.

So at least according to this source, the increased temperature cited above is a product of the changing properties of the instrument, not of any increased solar output.

[gigabite]

There could be a cumulative effect due to the long-term exposure, and the heater modulation has to be optimized, but it has to be a skin temperature nonetheless because it is beyond the operating range of the internal instruments, besides that does not explain the size of the modulation. It seems to be a direct relationship because it gets warmer as we get closer to the Sun.

The only way to tell is to wait until 2012 or 2013 at the solar max to see if it drops as the number of cool spots on the Sun increases.

There are a lot of misconceptions about irradiance. It is the sum of all radiation not just those bandwidths that cause heating. Measuring irradiance was a method that was developed before the space age to calculate the temperature of the surface of the Sun using ratio and proportion . I don’t think irradiance is a better measure of temperature than a thermometer.

Can you find a better thermometer?

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

interesting about the cloud cover

[Sanibel]

We now have very warm mild weather in Florida after an abnormally cold November. These shoulder season imbalances are typical of global warming upsetment of weather patterns. Winter weather in November followed by unusually mild weather in December. This is how global warming arrives. Not with a huge sign around its neck as some demand.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

I agree Sanibel. These imbalances are certainly strong signs of GW.

Africa, Asia, and the Arctic have seen major glacier loss. Folks this is happening
faster than even the models predicted.
Photographic Proof and Documentation of Global Warming:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/ ... hange.html

It is clear from past research that Earth's climate has varied significantly over time, the causes of which are many and complex. Even over the span of human history, the Earth has undergone significant periods of warming and cooling. Present day global warming however is not, to most scientists, a consequence of natural climate variability. Most recognize that the present change to a warmer climate is a product of human impact on the Earth system.

Evidence for Global Warming
Though a few scientists remain skeptical, there is a a growing consensus that the present day warming is real and humans are driving it. Evidence for global warming can be found in every part of the Earth system. Besides well documented changes in air temperature, global warming is

heating the world's oceans
reducing sea ice extent, especially in the Arctic
melting glaciers
causing sea level to rise
altering habitats and
affecting plant and animal distributions
Evidence from the oceans
Global warming has already had a significant impact on the hydrosphere, especially glaciers and oceans. Tide gauge measurements show a worldwide increase of sea level of 15-20 cm (6-8 inches). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest the rise is due to the expansion of ocean water due to rising temperatures (contributing about 3 - 7 cm) and the melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps (contributing about 2 - 4 cm). Sea level is rising so high in locations like the arctic coast of Canada that small villages are threatened.

Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant decrease in areal extent over the past few decades. Recent NASA research indicates that arctic sea ice is shrinking at a rate of 9.6 percent per decade. September ice coverage between 200-2005 were 20 percent below the period 1979 - 2000. Such ice thinning and retreat has impacts ocean salinity, heat balance and animal habitat. Polar bear populations are on the decline as ice thins making for precarious hunting conditions. Ice pack break up leaves polar bears stranded further from land. Polar bears are being forced to swim longer distances between ice floes and drowning during the journey.



Figure CS.46 Changes in Sea Ice, 1979 - 2003
Courtesy NASA (Source)

Evidence from glaciers
A 2005 study provided "compelling" evidence that ocean warming over the past 40 years is linked to the industrial release of carbon dioxide. Scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography used a variety of scenarios to reproduce the observed rise of ocean temperatures over the last four decades. The rise of ocean temperatures could not be accurately explained by computer models based on the natural climate variability of solar radiation and volcanic emissions. "What absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming," said Dr Barnett, lead scientist on the study. Their model reproduced the observed ocean temperatures with a statistical confidence of 95%.

Evidence for warming is occurring in all parts of the Earth system. Most of the world's glaciers are in retreat as a result of global warming. Evidence for the loss of ice is documented in the journals of the first explorers to Alaska. In the 1790's travelers to the area near Glacier Bay reported only a small embayment of coastline with a large glacier occupying the basin of Glacier Bay. By the 1890's the glacier was in retreat as 40 miles of coastline was now exposed. Today, visitors can still marvel at the great tidewater glaciers, but for how long? Glacier Bay now extends for 60 miles.

Bruce Molinia of the United States Geological Survey has documented the retreat of Alaskan glaciers by comparing present day conditions to photographs taken by geologists and visitors to the region over a century before. The dramatic evidence is seen in photographs of Muir Glacier taken from the same position in 1899 and 2003.



Figure CS.47a Muir Glacier, 1899
(Courtesy USGS)


Figure CS.47b Muir Glacier, 2003
(Courtesy USGS)

The BBC's David Shukman reports that scientists have found that the rate of melting on the Greenland ice cap is far greater than what normally occurs during the summer. Sea level is expected to rise by 7 meters should the ice cap melt, drowning coastlines worldwide.

A first ever gravity survey of Antarctica recently revealed that it had lost a substantial amount of mass. Researchers found that the ice sheet covering Antarctica lost 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches), about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the survey period.

Geographic Patterns of Global Warming
The effects of global warming will not be the same in all places. The smallest changes in temperature are to occur in tropical regions, while the Arctic and Antarctic will experience considerable changes. The Arctic regions are seen as the "bell weather" of what global warming will bring. [ See "The Arctic: Our Global Thermostat" from Scientific American Frontiers]



Figure CS.48 Projected future regional patterns of warming based on three emissions scenarios (low, medium, and high growth). Source: NASA Earth Observatory, based on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)

Tropical Regions
Most model predictions indicate the smallest change to temperature will occur in tropical latitudes. Depending on model assumptions and location, annual changes on the order of .1 oC to 3 oC are predicted. Analysis indicates that there may be significant differences within the tropics, especially in Asia, depending on proximity to the sea. Warming is projected to be least in the islands and coastal areas throughout Indonesia, the Philippines, and coastal south Asia and Indo-China and greatest inland. Even with relatively small temperatures, they can be devastating. A 3-degree Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) rise in temperature would result in a 60 percent reduction in the arabica coffee area in Brazil, the world's largest producer.

Subtropical Regions
Though most geoscientists have felt that the Arctic will show the first true signs of a future climate, dramatic changes have been recorded in subtropical regions. Recent analysis of satellite data has found that each hemisphere's jet stream has moved poleward by about 1 degrees of latitude or 70 miles. Jet streams are found on the poleward limit of the tropics which means they are getting wider. Continued movement would mean the spread of subtropical deserts like the Sahara. Regional climate predictions for southern Africa during summer suggest a warm season increase of 2oC to 4oC over the subcontinent, with the doubling of carbon dioxide. Current climate models project regional temperature increases between 4o and 10o F by 2100, with an 8o to 15oF increase in the average summer heat index for the southeastern United States.

The Midlatitudes
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme events in midlatitude regions like the midwest United States. A severe drought in 1988, heat waves in 1995 and 1996, flooding on the Mississippi in 1993 (100-year flood) and 2002, and numerous tornadoes and severe thunderstorms can be expected in the future. Illinois will be become warmer, especially in the summer having temperatures more like present-day Oklahoma or Arkansas. Wisconsin temperatures could rise 5o-10oF in the winter and by 8o - 17o F during the summer by 2100. Extreme heat will be more common than today. Southern Ontario's winter temperatures are expected to increase by 3o - 7oC and summer's to be 4-8C warmer. More southerly states like Illinois will experience less warmer. Winter temperatures are expected to increase by 5o-7F during the winter in Indiana and summer temperatures increasing by 8o - 10o F. Growing seasons could be 4 to 7 weeks longer in Wisconsin and 3 to 6 weeks longer to the south in Illinois. Under a medium-high emissions scenario, the IPCC predicts a 5.5o-7.9oF change in statewide in California.

Arctic regions
The arctic regions appear to be impacted the most. Observations of mean annual surface air temperature over the past 50 years has increased 3.6oF to 5.4°F in Alaska and Siberia and decreased by 1.8°F over southern Greenland. Mean annual surface air temperature over the Arctic region (north of 60° latitude) is projected to increase 3.6°F by 2050 and 8°F by 2100.

Figure CS.49 House damaged by melting permafrost.
(Source: Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming)

The arctic is already experiencing the impact of global warming. The melting tundra presents an engineering nightmare to those living in this environment. Climate scientists fear that the melting permafrost will release millions of tons of stored carbon back into the atmosphere further fueling global warming.

See how climate change is and will affect northern Europe's environment and economy by viewing "Living with Climate Change" courtesy of the EU.




Previous | Continue

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

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere
The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating electricity.

Methane Also Increasing
Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years. [18] Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Back to Top of Page

More Frequent Extreme Weather
The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). [6] Back to Top of Page







Disappearing Glaciers Ice is melting all over the planet. Glaciers are melting on six continents.

If present warming trends continue, all glaciers in Glacier National Park could be gone by 2030. [54] The park's Grinnell Glacier is already 90% gone. Pictured here is the glacier prior to its meltdown. [120]

Because of global warming, the glaciers of the Ruwenzori range in Uganda are in massive retreat.

The Bering Glacier, North America's largest glacier, has lost 7 miles of its length, while losing 20-25% of parts of the glacier.

Ice cores taken from the Dunde Ice Cap in the Qilian Mountains on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau indicate that the years since 1938 have been the warmest in the last 12,000 years.



The melting is accelerating. The Lewis Glacier on Mt. Kenya (In Kenya) has lost 40% of its mass during the period 1963-1987 or at a much faster clip than during 1899-1963. [29]

See Gary Braasch's Pictures of Receding Glaciers

See More Images of Receding Glaciers


Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson on global warming and retreating glaciers


In southern Peru the rate of melting of the Qori Kalis glacier during the 8 year period 1983 to 1991 was 3 times the pace of the previous 20 years, 1963 to 1983. "By the time we probably know what they are doing, it will be far too late to worry about it because they are going to be like galloping glaciers," says Ellen Mosley Thompson, climate expert at Ohio State University. [30] The Qori Kalis is receding at about two feet per day. Sitting beside the glacier, one could witness the melting hour by hour. [120]

In a study that appeared in the journal, Science, September 15, 2000, a team led by Lonnie G. Thompson, including Ellen Mosley-Thompson, both of Ohio State, analyzed ice cores that came from deep within a glacier more than 20,000 feet high in the Himalayas. The results of their research showed that the past 100 years have been the hottest period in 1,000 years high in the Himalayas. Also their research supports other studies that demonstrated a dramatic decline in water levels of glacier-fed rivers, and that the high elevations are warming much more than the global average (one degree F). Mosley-Thompson says, "For these rivers to continue to flow year-round, they have to be fed by ice in the high mountains. The question then is where will the river flow come from during the dry season?" [59]

Greenland's glaciers are moving more rapidly to the sea, caused, perhaps, by melt water lubricating the base of the glaciers. See below for another look at dwindling ice mass in Greenland.

The Tasman Glacier in New Zealand has thinned by more than 100 meters in the past century. Glaciers in New Zealand have shrunk about 26% between 1890 and 1998. [54]

The melting of the Gangotri Glacier in India is accelerating with an average rate of retreat of 30 meters annually. The rate between 1935 and 1990 was 18 meters per year and 7 meters annually between 1842 and 1935. [54]

A glacier from which Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay set out to conquer Mount Everest nearly 50 years ago has retreated three miles up the mountain due to global warming. The head of the Nepal Mountaineering Association, Tashi Jangbu Sherpa, says " that Hillary and Tenzing would now have to walk two hours to find the edge of the glacier which was close to their original base camp." [114]

Portage Glacier in the Chugach National Forest, south of Anchorage, is another casualty of climate change, say scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These researchers found that melting glaciers are responsible for at least 9 percent of the global sea-level rise over the past century.

Back to Top of Page

Melting Arctic Sea Ice
The Arctic, with an area about the size of the United States, is seeing average temperatures similar to the Antarctic, almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the planet as a whole

Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 250 million acres -- an area the size of California, Maryland and Texas combined.

In a N.Y Times article (Nov. 17, 1999) it was reported that scientists have discovered that from 1993 through 1997 average Arctic sea ice thickness was six feet. This represents a significant reduction in Arctic sea ice from 1958 through 1976 when average thickness measured 10 feet. This means that in less than 30 years, there has been a 40% loss of arctic sea ice. In a Washington Post article (Dec. 3, 1999) it was noted that in the Arctic, sea ice is shrinking at a rate of 14,000 square miles annually, an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined.

According to a report by Norwegian scientists, the arctic sea ice in about 50 years could disappear entirely each summer. Researchers at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center based their predictions on satellite pictures. These pictures showed that the Arctic winter icescapes decreased by 6% (a Texas-size area) during the last 20 years. [61] Back to Top of Page

Melting Antarctic Sea Ice
The Antarctic Peninsula has seen an increase in average temperatures of almost 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 50 years. Heavy sea ice has been the norm in the Antarctic, but in the 1990's sea ice disintegration has begun, notes Robin Ross, a biological oceanographer with the University of California at Santa Barbara. During the year 1998, the Antarctic displayed a record low in winter sea ice. Back to Top of Page

Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting
In a recent study by researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that Greenland's ice sheet, about 8% of the Earth's grounded ice (Antarctica possessing 91% of land ice), is losing ice mass. A NASA high-tech aerial survey shows that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 7% of the annual global sea level rise. Measurements over the last century suggest that sea level has risen 9 inches, enough to cause flooding in low-lying areas, when a storm occurs. Sea level increase could worsen, if the present trend continues, says William Krabill, lead author of the NASA study. [53] Back to Top of Page

Tropical Diseases Spreading
A recent study by New Zealand doctors, researchers at the Wellington School of Medicine's public health department said outbreaks o f dengue fever in South Pacific islands are directly related to global warming. [9] Global warming is projected to significantly increase the range conducive to the transmission of both dengue and yellow fevers. [10] Back to Top of Page


Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration
Devastating loss of coral in the Caribbean - March, 2006
In March, 2006 researchers discovered devastating loss of coral in the Caribbean off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. "It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 official monitoring stations in the Virgin Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."...............Miller noted that some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only grows the width of one dime each year.



If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a University of Puerto Rico biology researcher. While investigating the widespread loss of Caribbean coral, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral — more than 13 feet high — that had just died in the waters off Puerto Rico.........."We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have never seen before."

"We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before," said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch.

Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance says that compared to coral areas in the Indian and Pacific ocean, where warming waters have brought about a 90% mortality rate, the Caribbean is healthier.

The Caribbean is actually better off than areas of the Indian and Pacific ocean where mortality rates — mostly from warming waters — have been in the 90 percent range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an underwater holocaust."

"The prognosis is not good," said biochemistry professor M. James Crabbe of the University of Luton near London. "If you want to see a coral reef, go now, because they just won't survive in their current state."

Read more in AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein's article in the San Francisco Chronicle
******************


A Doubling of Atmospheric CO2 will Stunt Coral Growth
The Earth is on a trajectory to double its atmospheric carbon dioxide (above 700 ppm) by the year 2065. Scientists say that this will result in a 30% drop in the amount of calcium that tropical oceans can retain, whereby coral growth would be stunted by the lack of calcium in these ocean waters. [34] [87] This would threaten the capability of coral to repair itself in the event of storm damage and from coral-chewing predators...............Robert W. Buddemeier, senior chemist with the Kansas Geological Survey says, "There is growing agreement that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere means a 15% decline in the coral population."[116]

*****************


Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium October 2000
In October, 2000 at the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, held on the island of Bali, researchers warned that more than 25% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed by pollution and global warming. Scientists emphasized that most of the damage to coral is inflicted by global warming through coral bleaching, the result of higher water temperatures heating the coral. The warming waters stress the coral, which then expels the microscopic plants or algae that give the coral color and nourishes it. Most of the remaining coral could be dead in 20 years, if global warming and pollution continue. Coral reefs around the Maldives and Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean have taken the brunt of warming seas, as 90% of these corals have been killed over the past two years. Some of the coral reefs, long described as undersea rainforests, home to marine ecosystems that sustain thousands of species of fish and other marine life, have been alive for up to 2.5 million years. [62]

At the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, oceanographers said that the El Nino weather pattern two years ago, that led to an increase in ocean water temperature by up to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, did heavy damage to coral reefs. Australian scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg warns that in 20 years coral will be sitting in a "hot soup" and will not survive. Millions of people depend on coral for income ($400 billion annually in fishing and tourism revenue) and food. [62]


*****************

World's Coral Reefs Will be Dead Within 50 Years
According to Rupert Ormond, a marine biologist from Glasgow University, the world's coral reefs will be dead within 50 years because of global warming, and there is nothing we can do to save them, a scientist warned on September 5, 2001. In a conference held by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he said, "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that most coral in most areas will be lost........We are looking at a loss which is equivalent to the tropical rain forests." He also mentioned that if humans were to stop pumping out greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, tomorrow in a bid to halt the process, it would still be too late to save the reefs. "I don't know what can be done, given that there's a 50-year time lag between trying to limit carbon dioxide levels and any effect on ocean temperature............"We are looking at a gradual running down of the whole system. Over time, the diversity of coral fish will die," Ormond said. He also said that the only cause for optimism was that new coral reefs could start to emerge in colder waters such as the north Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Humankind will also suffer directly as the dead reefs are eroded and shorelines that have been protected for the last 10,000 years are now vulnerable without their natural defenses.
Go directly to information source (September 6, 2001) or [104]

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_pu ... idence.htm
See Figures on Link

Scientific Evidence
Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.


Figure 1. CO2 and Temperature. Barnola et al, 2003; Jouzel/Petit et al; Keeling et al; Neftel/Friedli et al. Data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Select image for larger version - 116KB. Opens in a new window.)


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Noting these trends, and recognizing the potential for dramatic changes in the climate due to continued unchecked accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The purpose of the IPCC was to objectively review existing and developing peer-reviewed scientific literature to form an objective evaluation about the risk of human-induced climate change.

After years of investigation and in consultation with thousands of scientists, the IPCC was able to write, in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, that climate has changed over the past century and that the twentieth century had a mean temperature “at least as warm as any other century since 1400 A.D.” Their report noted that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 376 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects and concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Their models predicted a rise of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the global mean surface temperature during the next century, with sea-levels expected to rise by 6 inches to 3 feet by 2100. (IPCC 1995). The conclusions of the IPCC gained broad support in the world scientific community and, in the summer of 1997, a letter signed by 2,600 scientists called for the United States to take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the likelihood of intense, continuous global warming.

Improved Models, Growing Confidence
The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC was released in 2001, incorporating new research undertaken in the five years since the Second Assessment Report. Increased confidence in evolving modeling techniques lent added weight to the linkage between rising temperatures and continued greenhouse accumulations.

Using Computer Models to Predict Influences on Climate



Fig. 2. Comparison of observed temperature anomalies and modeled anomalies predicted under varying "forcing" scenarios. Source: IPCC, Third Assesment Report, Climate Change 2001.


For example, recorded global temperature change can be compared with computer models that predict temperature change under different "forcing" scenarios, (with "forcings" signifying external influences on the solar radiative budget of the planet - greenhouse gases, aerosols, increased solar radiation, and other agents). Fig. 2 above compares observed temperature anomalies from the historic mean (red line) with the results of computer models that attempt to predict temperature based on the interactions of other environmental influences (gray line).

The top two charts in the figure illustrate that models using natural and anthropogenic influences alone [(a) Natural Forcing Only & (b) Anthropogenic Forcing Only] fail to match the observed record of temperature anomalies since 1866. But the combination of natural and anthropogenic models [(c) Natural + Anthropogenic Forcing] produces a close match to the measured data. This is seen as a clear "thumbprint" of human impacts on climate change.

Based on results such as these, the IPCC's 2001 report stated emphatically that "concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities." Revised models for the future predict even higher anticipated temperature increases than did the First Assessment Report (2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 under different likely scenarios), while estimates for sea-level rise, though significant, decreased slightly with refinements to the models used.


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

Accumulating Evidence
Other evidence of the reality of global warming continues to accumulate. Consistent with predictions of the IPCC since 1990, global average temperatures have indeed been rising while atmospheric CO2 increases at a rate of approximately 1.6ppm per year (Fig. 3, below).


Figure 3. Global Temperature & CO2 Concentration Since 1880. Data from NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) & Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Select image for larger version - 109KB. Opens in a new window.)


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

The ten hottest years in the period of instrumental data (since 1861) have all occurred since 1989. The warmest year was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (tied) and 1991 & 2000 (tied) (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia), and it is now generally recognized that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record (Fig. 4, below).


Figure 4. Global Temperature Anomalies (deviation from the 1880 - 2004 mean). Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC). (Select image for larger version - 60KB. Opens in a new window.)


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

The global monthly temperature record for each month of the year over the history of instrumented data has occurred since 1997 (Fig. 5, below).


Figure 5. All record global monthly temperatures have occurred since 1997. Data from University of East Anglia, Climatic Research Unit. (Select image for larger version - 74KB. Opens in a new window.)


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

Other global events are suggestive of climatic changes that are likely to become more prevalent under a changing global climate regime. Glaciers are present on every continent other than Australia and function as reasonably well-distributed indicators of changing global temperatures. Worldwide, glaciers and icefields have been shrinking and receding for at least the last century. The collapse of the 1250 square mile Antarctic Larsen B ice shelf in 2002 was just one of the more spectacular instances of a phenomenon that is likely to become more frequent in a warmer world. Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is an event long predicted by climate scientists as an indication of a warming atmosphere (Gelbspan 1997).

The northern Arctic region appears to be even more vulnerable than the Antarctic (which may actually see increases to its ice sheet due to increased precipitation under a changing climate regime) and in a 2004 report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), (Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), the list of Arctic change due to warming includes such phenomena as decreases in sea ice, increasing precipitation and river discharge, thawing of glaciers and permafrost, and changes in plant and animal abundances and distributions.

While it is impossible to establish a direct causal link between greenhouse gas accumulation and individual, relatively short-term climatic events, it is certain that we have been experiencing increasing numbers of climatic events unprecedented in the human experience. It is also certain that many of the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, have lengthy residence times in the atmosphere and that we will continue to be affected for years or even centuries to come by the atmospheric burden we are creating today. (For comments on the role of scientific uncertainty in climate change policy, see Dr. John Holdren's address at the White House Conference on Climate Change October 6th, 1997.)

« The Greenhouse Effect | The Culprits »



Please share in our work for the health of the planet by supporting the Center with a secure online donation.




Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.
- Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, 2001


©Woods Hole Research Center, 2008

Forget about what the UN thinks of Israel or the US; the evidence not
only by the IPCC but also the National Academy of Sciences points
to a rapidly accelerating warming pattern. I remember the extremely
violent hurricane force weather events of winter 1998 (early 1998), where
winds were recorded over hurricane force on several occasions along
central florida ahead of unusually strong squalls, I remember a violent
burst of wind and a tornado throwing a large object like a car into my
elementary school classroom building, and when I got home there was major
wind damage; large tables and entire plants in heavy bases where lifted up
and thrown across the yard, road, and into the pool.

The fact is, weather events will continue to get much more violent. Yes
new technology is finding more weather events, but they will still
get stronger with added heat. It is the only way the heat energy can
be dissipated if methane and carbon dioxide prevent thermal escape into
space. This is Chemistry, and it explains itself very well. Extreme
cold in the midwest while Florida is seeing hot weather.
The sheer extremity of the thermal disharmony and imbalance is a significantly
alarming sign.

When Glenn Beck talks about "inconvenient thermometers" (those located
near concrete), I'd like to ask him how many concrete parking lots are
in the Arctic where there is ice- how are those inconvenient? Those are
reliable weather stations that have SHOWN EVIDENCE of Global Warming
by Humans. Sorry Glenn, but you sound like a flat-Earther to me.
And regarding the scientist on the senate website saying that global warming is a conspiracy
theory to prevent development of other countries, the truth will show itself
through extreme weather events, such as mass melting of glaciers. Global
warming is scientifically proven. Al Gore Got a Nobel Peace Prize. I wonder
how many Skeptics Got Nobel Prizes IN CLIMATOLOGY, not some other subject.
The judges aren't stupid or part of some political conspiracy, Al Gore won because
he stuck to the facts. And, Mark My Words, many skeptics are in for a major
shock due to ignoring the facts of human-made global warming.

[gigabite]

Radiative heat transfer is inversely related to distance

[x-y-no]

Radiative heat transfer is inversely related to distance

OK ... that's a change of 0.021%. Do you really think that accounts for any measurable change in the Earth's temperature?

[Ed Mahmoud]

A less than perfect consensus from a UN organization is not "solid proof".


Frank Tipler, Ph.D., University of Maryland, 1976, Professor. Global general relativity, Cosmology, Anthropic principles, Theoretical particle physics. (Joint appointment with Mathematics)


(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

I personally sort of doubt AGW, but I am no expert, and it is possible, but I lean towards the theory expressed further in the article of Dr. Tipler that the pursuit of government grants may tend to skew the consensus in the direction that maximizes grants.

Edit for bad link fu...

[x-y-no]

(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself.

Really? How would an average person (who presumably doesn't have a personal particle accelerator) check observations of the existence of subatomic particles like quarks?

As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience.

No, it doesn't predict "steadily increasing global temperatures" - this is an absolutely false statement. At no time, ever, has there been any scientific claim that the rate of warming would be anywhere near large enough to cause monotonic warming given the large interannual variability. It simple hasn't.

Dr. Tipler erects a straw man.

NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period.

What? No they don't.

The only thing I can imaging here is that he is taking the entirely noncontroversial fact that climate science has long recognized the existence of dynamic events like ENSO and the PDO and their effect on interannual variability and is pretending that this is something new. It isn't.

In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

Most researchers in the field have, as far as I've seen, refrained from claiming direct attribution of any specific event to global warming. What they will do is talk about the high probability that large trends like the arctic sea ice extent in summer or the loss of total mass of ice in glaciers or on large land masses like Greenland are attributable to AGW.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Isn't the old and now discredited "hockey stick" graph an implicit claim of monotonic warming?