Alaska's glaciers growing for first time in centuries.

[Ed Mahmoud]

The PDO's fault, says Joe D'Aleo.

The decline since 1999 and especially since 2007 has led to rapid cooling and heavy snows. Alyeska, Alaska picked up 826” (nearly 70 feet) of snow last snow season.

This was followed by an extremely cold summer and a sudden advance of Alaskan Glaciers for the first time in 250 years.Anchorage reached 65F only 16 times this past summer, tying the record set in 1970 for least 65F days. It broke the record for least 70F days with only 2.With heavy winter snows and a cold spring and summer, the ice did not melt as much as usual - the result was a net increase or advance in glaciers.

As Michael Asher reported October 16, 2008 in Daily Tech, Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years: A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

[MGC]

Good post Ed. It is important for people to know that these glaciers have been receeding for 250 years, long before the industrial revolution. I wonder if Al Gore included this fact in his fictional movie?....MGC

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Seems to me that Al Gore's Movie may have some supporting evidence:

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

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.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Regional Variation influenced by a PDO does not negate anthropogenic human
atmospheric forcing. CO2, CH4, saturated organic compounds contain tremendous heat and Gibbs free energy in cumulative global sum on the order of millions of Kilojoules of heat release in combustion or similar
reaction. Al Gore is accurate about the threat of global warming. Gibbs free energy release
helps to validate his claims.

[MGC]

So what caused the glaciers to start melting 250 years ago? Not human activity. Nearly 8 inches of snow at my sisters house in south Louisiana Thursday.....global warming indeed!......MGC

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

So what caused the glaciers to start melting 250 years ago? Not human activity. Nearly 8 inches of snow at my sisters house in south Louisiana Thursday.....global warming indeed!......MGC

The glaciers started melting due to a natural cycle. I'm not denying the fact that there is a natural cycle.
But human activity, on the order of burning tons of hydrocarbonated petroleum, will release
a ton of heat. This is by virtue of just chemical reactions: Carbon carbon single bonds
in saturated hydrocarbon petroleum chains cotain 347 kilojoules per mole released, and billions
of moles of hydrocarbon are released daily, resulting in trillions of kilojoules total of heat
release. This will certainly add heat to the earth. Trillions of Kilojoules of heat release
make global warming worsened by humans a significant threat. It's like a pyromaniac setting
a whole dry forest on fire. These chemical calculations make a skeptic jump out of their chair, because
the ramifications are substantial.

On Thursday, during the snow-storm, the morning low was near 80 degrees Fahrenheit at my location out
ahead of the front, which is what we typically see in August, a good 30 degrees
above normal. Wednesday afternoon had high temperatures near 90*F with heat
indices hitting 90*F in many south florida locations. After the front passed the temperatures
dropped to 65-70*F, a reinforcing shot bringing temperature highs only in the 50s on Friday. Saturday
morning was the coldest, low 40s. But this entire week is forecasted to be in the 80s and no
sign of a cold front in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few inland florida location
reach the mid 80s next week.

[Skyhawk]

But human activity, on the order of burning tons of hydrocarbonated petroleum, will release
a ton of heat. This is by virtue of just chemical reactions: Carbon carbon single bonds
in saturated hydrocarbon petroleum chains cotain 347 kilojoules per mole released, and billions
of moles of hydrocarbon are released daily, resulting in trillions of kilojoules total of heat
release. This will certainly add heat to the earth. Trillions of Kilojoules of heat release
make global warming worsened by humans a significant threat. It's like a pyromaniac setting
a whole dry forest on fire. These chemical calculations make a skeptic jump out of their chair, because
the ramifications are substantial.[/Quote]

Big numbers indeed, however big compared to what? The important comparison is the amount of energy released by burning fossil fuels compared to the amount of energy received from the sun. In the absence of burning fossil fuels, the earth must re-radiate to space the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun in order to be in equillibrium. Using a very crude model this established the blackbody temperature of the earth. With the burning of fossil fuels the earth must now radiate the energy released from the burning of the fuels as well as the energy received from the sun to be in equillibrium. This results in a higher blackbody temperature, but how much higher is the question.

It would be proper for the one making the claim that burning fossil fuels is going to warm the earth significantly to run the numbers first. If the amount of energy from fossil fuels is a sizeable fraction of that received from the sun then there will be significant warming. But it also means that renewable energy will never be a workable substitute for fossil fuels, since the sun is ultimately the source of renewable energy and only a small fraction of the incident energy can be converted.

This will certainly add heat to the earth.

But not in a properly taught thermodynamics class!

Thermal energy is a term often confused with that of heat. Loosely speaking, when heat is added to a thermodynamic system its thermal energy increases and when heat is withdrawn its thermal energy decreases. In this point of view, objects that are hot are referred to as being in possession of a large amount of thermal energy, whereas cold objects possess little thermal energy. Thermal energy then is often mistakenly defined as being synonym for the word heat. This, however, is not the case: an object cannot possess heat, but only energy. The term "thermal energy" when used in conversation is often not used in a strictly correct sense, but is more likely to be only used as a descriptive word. In physics and thermodynamics, the words “heat”, “internal energy”, “work”, "enthalpy" (heat content), "entropy", "external forces", etc., which can be defined exactly, i.e. without recourse to internal atomic motions and vibrations, tend to be preferred and used more often than the term "thermal energy", which is difficult to define.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

[Ed Mahmoud]

Gibbs free energy.



I remember my college p-chem class, long ago with Dr. Schechter...

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

So the energy released from fossil fuel use may not all be heat, interesting.
Some of it certainly goes into entropy and other forms of energy.
Then it seems to me that the danger is with carbon dioxide.

Earth's positional variations with respect to the sun, involving orbit and axis location,
have mediated glacial and interglacial periods. So every 100,000 years there is an ice age,
with the previous one ending 10,000 years ago.

Short wave solar radiation hits the earth's surface and is reflected back as infrared radiation,
which has long wavelengths. Most of the infrared radiation goes back out into space, but
a small partition is trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761 ... rming.html

A: Debates Over Global Warming

While the behavior of the climate system and the processes that cause global warming are well understood and grounded in basic scientific principles, scientists are still working to understand certain details of the climate system and its response to increasing greenhouse gases. Scientific uncertainty is inevitable with a system as complex as Earth’s climate. However, advancements in measuring, analyzing, and modeling techniques have helped clarify many uncertainties in recent years.

For example, there had been uncertainty regarding why the warming trend stopped for three decades in the middle of the 20th century. Records even showed some cooling before the climb resumed in the 1970s. The lack of warming at mid-century is now attributed largely to the sulfate aerosols in air pollution, which have a cooling effect because they reflect some incoming sunlight back to space. Continued warming has now overcome this effect, in part because pollution control efforts have made the air cleaner.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature, which became available around 1980, originally were thought to measure much less warming in the lower region of the atmosphere than surface thermometers. This led to some doubt about the accuracy of the warming detected at the surface. Eventually, other researchers reanalyzed the satellite data using more advanced techniques and concluded that the satellites were detecting warming quite similar to surface measurements. While there is still some uncertainty, scientists examining the satellite data now agree that the record is consistent with a warming world.

For many years global warming was portrayed in the media as an issue with two sides, with some scientists arguing that global warming is occurring and others arguing that it is not. However, this portrayal was an oversimplification of the scientific debate. Skeptics of global warming, including some scientists, pointed to lingering scientific uncertainties to question whether global warming is actually occurring. However, there is now undeniable evidence that global temperatures are increasing, based on direct temperature measurements and observations of other impacts such as melting glaciers and polar ice, rising sea level, and changes in the lifecycles of plants and animals. As the scientific evidence on rising global temperature became indisputable, skeptics focused their argument on whether human activities are in fact the cause of global warming. They argued that the observed warming could be caused by natural processes such as changes in the energy emitted by the Sun. However, the Sun’s influence has been found to have contributed only slightly to observed warming, particularly since the mid-20th century. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause of the warming.

In 1988 the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel comprises thousands of the top climate scientists from around the world and releases a report every six years describing the state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, offered the strongest scientific consensus to date on global warming. The panel concluded that it is “very likely” (more than 90 percent probability) that human activities are responsible for most of the warming since the mid-20th century; that it is “extremely unlikely” (less than 5 percent probability) that the warming is due to natural variability; and that it is “very likely” the warming is not due to natural causes alone. This level of certainty is extremely high, given the complexity of the climate system and of the influence of human activities on the climate.

B Global Warming Projections

In its 2007 report the IPCC projected temperature increases for several different scenarios, depending on the magnitude of future greenhouse gas emissions. For a “moderate” scenario—in which emissions grow slowly, peak around the year 2050, and then fall—the IPCC report projected further warming of 1.1 to 2.9 Celsius degrees (1.9 to 5.2 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. For a “high-emissions” scenario—in which emissions continue to increase significantly and finally level off at the end of the century—the IPCC report projected further warming of 2.4 to 6.4 Celsius degrees (4.3 to 11.5 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100.

The IPCC cautioned that even if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere ceased growing, the climate would continue to warm for an extended period as a result of past emissions, and with more dramatic effects than were observed during the 20th century. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, scientists project severe climate changes.

In October 2007 a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences warned that climate models used to project future global warming may have been overly optimistic. The study found that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had increased 35 percent from 1990 to 2006, a rate of increase far higher than most climate models had assumed. The researchers reported that the average rate of growth in carbon dioxide levels was 1.3 percent during the period from 1990 to 1999, but 3.3 percent from 2000 to 2006. In 2000 an estimated 7 billion metric tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels; by 2006 that number had grown to 8.4 billion metric tons, according to the study. Scientists pointed to the unexpectedly rapid melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer of 2007 as evidence that climate models were failing to predict how quickly the climate was changing.

Also, regarding the glaciers:

B Ice Sheets and Glaciers

Warming temperatures are already causing significant changes to mountain glaciers around the world, ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic, and polar sea ice in the Arctic. From Europe to Africa to Asia to North America, mountain glaciers have receded over the 20th century, and melting is becoming more rapid. The large-scale melting of ice may accelerate the pace of global warming in what is known as a feedback process. Because ice reflects sunlight back out to space, it has a cooling effect. Water and land, which are darker than ice, absorb and retain more heat.

Glaciers on Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, have lost 82 percent of their ice since 1912 and are estimated to be gone completely by 2020. Glaciers in the lofty Himalayas of Asia are melting at a rate of 9 to 15 m (30 to 50 ft) per year. Annual runoff from these glaciers feeds major rivers such as the Ganges, Yangtze, and Mekong. Glacier National Park in Montana is projected to have no glaciers left by 2030, and the number of glaciers has already dropped from an estimated 150 in 1850 to 26 in 2007.

In the Arctic annual average temperature has increased at almost twice the global rate over the past few decades. The area covered by sea ice during summer has declined by 15 to 20 percent in the last 30 years, and is projected to disappear almost completely late in the 21st century. Many species, including polar bears, seals, and walrus, depend on sea ice for their survival. The rapid loss of Alaskan glaciers represents almost half of the total loss of ice in glaciers worldwide, and makes a significant contribution to observed sea level rise. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which could raise sea level by 7 m (23 ft) if it melted completely, is also accelerating. The area that is experiencing at least some melting increased by 16 percent from 1979 to 2002, and scientists estimate that warming of more than a few degrees Celsius could cause widespread and possibly unstoppable melting, leading to significant sea level rise.

Fresh water flowing from melting Arctic ice into the North Atlantic Ocean could disrupt ocean circulation patterns, which have a significant influence on the global climate. According to scientific projections, a collapse of ocean circulation patterns is unlikely to occur by 2100. However, scientists do expect there to be a weakening and slowing of the thermohaline circulation, also known as the ocean conveyor belt. In addition, a disruption of surface circulation patterns in the North Atlantic, known collectively as the Gulf Stream, could lead to cooling in Europe.

In Antarctica the situation is somewhat different than in the Arctic. The Antarctic Peninsula, the “tail” of land reaching toward South America, has experienced dramatic warming at a rate several times the global average over the past 50 years. However, other parts of Antarctica have not shown similar trends, with some areas warming and some cooling. Overall, Antarctica is estimated to be warming at about the global average rate. Unlike the Arctic, there has been no clear general trend in sea ice. In the Antarctic Peninsula, however, ten floating ice shelves have lost more than 14,000 sq km (5,400 sq mi) of ice, and probably have not been at such a low level in the past 10,000 years. As in Greenland, scientists estimate that warming of more than a few degrees Celsius could lead to widespread melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet. This melting alone would raise sea level by as much as 5 m (16 ft).

[Ed Mahmoud]

The IPCC is a UN organization, and if you like the way the UN General Assembly runs (or how the US pays most of the bills and gets condemned the most often (Israel a close second), you'll love the 'consensus' of the IPCC.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Even if you ignore the IPCC, the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences Study is alarming, with the large amounts of fossil fuels
and rapid change in climate. Also the glacier measurements are not
from the IPCC and have been observed, it seems, for nearly a century
without any IPCC influence. I went to MSN encarta for this information
so that it is not just IPCC information. It is multiple sources- National
Academy of Sciences as well.

There's definitely natural cycles, this just adds to it. Whether that addition
is significant, I'm not sure. I guess we'll find out, in the next 20-30 years
With so many scientists and geologists disagreeing, perhaps the impact
of human activity would not be dramatic but nevertheless somewhat
noticeable. Maybe not significant, but possibly enough to notice
small changes.

[Sanibel]

I think people who promote headlines about expanding glaciers are just grasping at anything that even looks like it refutes global warming. You'll notice these people conspicuously fail to mention the world-wide condition of glaciers or Greenland's rapidly melting ice cap.

The relevant information is the relation of CO2 levels and previously recorded warming events captured in ice core samples. You can repeat this constantly but you'll still see people ignoring it and posting the first headline they see suggesting otherwise.

I'm sure people with drying glaciers in third world countries where the crops are failing would be glad to read of others enthusiasm over anomalous glaciers in Alaska.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

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.

[Skyhawk]

So the energy released from fossil fuel use may not all be heat, interesting.
Some of it certainly goes into entropy and other forms of energy.
Then it seems to me that the danger is with carbon dioxide.[/Quote]

No! You are still confused. A system does not possess heat, it possesses energy. I have already quoted Wikipedia to clarify the difference. Now I will quote from the p-chem book that I used for my first thermodynamics course in 1966.

"In thermodynamics heat is defined as a quantity that flows across the boundary of a system during a change in its state in virtue of a difference in temperature between the system and its surroundings and flows from a point of higher temperature to a point of lower temperature."

"Physical Chemistry," Castellan, Gilbert W., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, page 90, Reading, Mass, 1964.

Numerous other texts and sources could be quoted.

Entropy is not a form of energy. In fact, entropy and energy don't even have the same dimensions. Entropy is an extensive state variable of a system. Science is not based on feelings (how it "seems"), but on facts.

Short wave solar radiation hits the earth's surface and is reflected back as infrared radiation,
which has long wavelengths. Most of the infrared radiation goes back out into space, but
a small partition is trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.

Wrong again. Radiation reflected off of a stationary surface does not change its wave length. Approximately half of the radiation that is incident on the earth is absorbed by the earth (land and water). The earth then re-radiates that energy with a distribution that is detemined by its effective black body temperature. The distribution of energy over the spectrum is given by Planck's Law. Wien's Law gives the location of the peak in the distribution as inversely proportional to the black body temperature. Since the temperature of the sun is much higher than that of the earth, the inicident radiation from the sun has a much shorter wave length that the radiation emitted by the earth.

All of the infrared radiation is re-radiated. None of it is trapped. "Trapping" is misleading terminology and leads to wrong concepts. At equillibrium, the amount of energy exiting the earth system is exactly equal to the amount of energy incident on the system. What actually happens is that most of the infrared energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, which itself behaves like a blackbody and re-radiates the energy based on its temperature. When it re-radiates the energy it goes in all directions. Thus, some is directed back to the surface of the earth. This increases the effective radiative flux at the surface of the earth. Then according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law the temperature of the surface must increase in order to reach equillibrium.

Here are relevant links for you to study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_l ... _radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

The above discussion is much simplified because it assumes that all energy is transported by radiation, when in fact much is transported by convection. The convection of water vapor to the upper atmosphere where it condenses and releases energy bypasses the the hinderance to the transport of infrared energy by the atmosphere.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

So the energy released from fossil fuel use may not all be heat, interesting.
Some of it certainly goes into entropy and other forms of energy.
Then it seems to me that the danger is with carbon dioxide.[/Quote]

No! You are still confused. A system does not possess heat, it possesses energy. I have already quoted Wikipedia to clarify the difference. Now I will quote from the p-chem book that I used for my first thermodynamics course in 1966.

"In thermodynamics heat is defined as a quantity that flows across the boundary of a system during a change in its state in virtue of a difference in temperature between the system and its surroundings and flows from a point of higher temperature to a point of lower temperature."

"Physical Chemistry," Castellan, Gilbert W., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, page 90, Reading, Mass, 1964.

Numerous other texts and sources could be quoted.

Entropy is not a form of energy. In fact, entropy and energy don't even have the same dimensions. Entropy is an extensive state variable of a system. Science is not based on feelings (how it "seems"), but on facts.

Short wave solar radiation hits the earth's surface and is reflected back as infrared radiation,
which has long wavelengths. Most of the infrared radiation goes back out into space, but
a small partition is trapped in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.

Wrong again. Radiation reflected off of a stationary surface does not change its wave length. Approximately half of the radiation that is incident on the earth is absorbed by the earth (land and water). The earth then re-radiates that energy with a distribution that is detemined by its effective black body temperature. The distribution of energy over the spectrum is given by Planck's Law. Wien's Law gives the location of the peak in the distribution as inversely proportional to the black body temperature. Since the temperature of the sun is much higher than that of the earth, the inicident radiation from the sun has a much shorter wave length that the radiation emitted by the earth.

All of the infrared radiation is re-radiated. None of it is trapped. "Trapping" is misleading terminology and leads to wrong concepts. At equillibrium, the amount of energy exiting the earth system is exactly equal to the amount of energy incident on the system. What actually happens is that most of the infrared energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, which itself behaves like a blackbody and re-radiates the energy based on its temperature. When it re-radiates the energy it goes in all directions. Thus, some is directed back to the surface of the earth. This increases the effective radiative flux at the surface of the earth. Then according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law the temperature of the surface must increase in order to reach equillibrium.

Here are relevant links for you to study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_l ... _radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law

The above discussion is much simplified because it assumes that all energy is transported by radiation, when in fact much is transported by convection. The convection of water vapor to the upper atmosphere where it condenses and releases energy bypasses the the hinderance to the transport of infrared energy by the atmosphere.

Thank you for that explanation- some of my sources oversimplified the process and
resulted in my confused interpretations.
Those physics/scientific laws are very interesting. The black body radiation and
Stefan-Boltzmann law certainly have interesting implications. As the earth
experiences warmer temperatures in order to reach equilibrium, interesting
things may happen...

[TYNI]

Believe it or not, two years ago, when I visited Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, on a tour of one of their glaciers (in the table lands I believe), it was reported that this was at the time, the only known glacier in the world that was growing, and not shrinking... I was astounded. I am happy to see this is now not the case.

[Sanibel]

I'm failing to see anyone relate this to the vast percentage of glaciers that are declining all over earth?


Ed?