Global Warming

[Jane M]

http://www.halflifesource.com/images/news/globalwarmsw.jpg
Global Warming goes from opinion to fact

Posted Jun 29, 2006 PM ET


The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about global warming climate change.

The Bush Administration could face a legal challenge over its regulation of carbon dioxide emissions as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Friends of the Earth US, numerous state and city authorities and NGOs.

The groups are questioning a 2003 ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency that disavowed its jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming carbon dioxide emissions.

If the court rules against the EPA, the legal status of carbon dioxide in the US would be clarified as climate changing – a position continually denied by the Bush Administration.

"This case could have far reaching consequences for climate change policy in the USA," said Friends of the Earth International vice-chair, Tony Juniper. "The Bush Administration's has used scientific uncertainty as a major reason against taking structured action on global warming."

Norman Dean, Executive Director, Friends of the Earth United States said that the Supreme Court's decision to hear this case could be a watershed moment in the fight to stop global warming, and went on to say,"The US government's wait and see approach to global warming pollutants isn't working."

http://www.halflifesource.com/site/news/global_warming_goes_from_opinion_to_fact/article7215.htm

[Limey]

well jesus it's about time. :rolleyes:

Can't wait to hear what happens to this.

[Juice]

Bush has his head too far up his ass to notice it's getting warmer elsewhere.

[Limey]

Thanks for posting this Jane. :)

A friend of mine and I are thinking of going to some democratic meetings and whatnot around here. I just can't deal with that man and all his lemmings anymore. :(
This is my brilliant post for the night.

[coconut]

Fingers crossed FOTE win.

[Pilaf]

It's definately getting warmer, but I'm reserving judgement on just how much humanity has to do with it. It's still a very big possibility that the Earth is simply returning to its normal temperatures after the last ice age. Those things take thousands of years to fully recede.

[Michael Benis]

It's definately getting warmer, but I'm reserving judgement on just how much humanity has to do with it. It's still a very big possibility that the Earth is simply returning to its normal temperatures after the last ice age. Those things take thousands of years to fully recede.

Bit of a coincidence, though, that's it's speeded up so much since the industrial revolution isn't it? And that the pace is getting faster and faster and appears linked to CO2 emissions?

Cheers

Mike

[veggiewoman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5130538.stm


Last Updated: Sunday, 2 July 2006, 15:06 GMT 16:06 UK http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/dot_629.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/email.gif E-mail this to a friend (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5130538.stm)http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/print.gif Printable version (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5130538.stm)
Long-haul birds 'returning early'

By Catherine Owen
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41828000/jpg/_41828424_barnswallow_science_203.jpg The barn swallow performs long migrations

Birds that migrate long distances have adapted to the world's changing climate in unexpected ways, a study shows.
As the planet warms, and spring arrives earlier in Europe, birds are being forced to change their migration patterns.
It had been thought that birds travelling long distances from Africa to Europe would be unable to adapt.
But a study in Science suggests they have evolved in response to climate change and are returning earlier.
The need for migratory birds to coincide their arrival at breeding grounds with plentiful food supplies is a known evolutionary pressure.
Scientists had assumed that birds travelling short distances would be better able to adapt - and arrive earlier for spring - because of similar climate conditions in their nearby winter grounds.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif Long-migrating birds arrive at least as early as short-migrating birds http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Nils Christian Stenseth, University of Oslo

But researchers in Europe decided to test this theory, using long-term banding and observational data from Scandinavia and Italy dating back to 1980.
The study revealed that long-distance fliers have adjusted their migration habits to arrive earlier in northern Europe in time for the start of spring.
This suggests a more permanent change in migratory behaviour due to climate change than previously thought.
'Surprising' response
Study-co-author Nils Christian Stenseth, from the University of Oslo in Norway, said migration in the species studied was thought to be a biological response triggered by day length, and not climate variations, in breeding grounds.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifCLIMATE CHANGE AND BIRDS
Evidence suggests warmer oceans are affecting the diet of seabirds
Birds whose populations rely on hatching two clutches of eggs a year may be hit hard
Migration and breeding of birds such as the puffin is moving out of step with food supplies

"Long-migrating birds arrive at least as early as short-migrating birds," he told the BBC News website.
"The trigger is probably related to the length of day, or the photoperiod.
"Birds typically respond to the right photoperiod for bringing up as good offspring as possible."
The birds begin to reproduce at just one year of age and so have the potential for a rapid genetic response to recent environmental events.
They are showing a "surprising and interesting evolutionary response to climate change", he added.
The research is the latest in a string of studies looking at the widespread effects of climate change on birds. Dr Paul Donald, senior research biologist at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK, said populations of long-distance migrants breeding in the UK and across Europe were showing worrying declines. "This study highlights the potential role climate change is playing," he said. "However, we must not ignore other potential factors affecting their fortunes here in the UK or on their wintering grounds in Africa."

[Onefirefly]

I think doing any little bit helps. Global warming happening or not, all the pollution going in the air/earth has got to be bad. Personally, I believe we have a serious issue on our hands, but so many people just dont want to hear it. :(

[Jane M]

From the Discovery News channel:

Rising Ocean Acidity Threatens Reefs

July 5, 2006 — The same manmade gases that are heating up the planet are also making oceans acidic enough to dissolve the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms, according to a new scientific report released Wednesday.

Already ocean surface concentrations of carbonic acid – created by excess atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving into the water – are high enough to eat away the skeletons of many vital reef-building corals and microscopic "calcifiers," like caulk-making phytoplankton and tiny marine snails.

"The (acidity) changes that are occurring in the oceans are truly extraordinary," said Joan Kleypas, a marine ecologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a coauthor of the July 5 multi-agency report entitled Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers. "It will continue to change as long as carbon dioxide is rising."

Atmospheric scientists around the world agree that the additional carbon dioxide in the air and oceans has come from exponential growth in fossil fuel burning emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century.

Current carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been for at least 650,000 years, according to ice core data from the Arctic and Antarctic.
Ocean acidity has already increased 30 percent since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th century, said Richard Feely, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

By the end of the 21st century that could go up to 150 percent, he said.
"This is not controversial," said Kleypas, referring to the current acidity levels. There’s an overwhelming amount of data backing it up, she said.
What isn’t known very well, however, is just how rise in acidity will change overall ocean chemistry, how much carbon dioxide the oceans can ultimately absorb, and how marine organisms will respond.

"We don’t know whether they can adapt or not," said Victoria Fabry, a marine biologist at California State University at San Marcos. At present the only studies of marine organisms under higher acidity have been done in laboratories.

"At the moment we can only speculate," Kleypas added. "We should start addressing these questions immediately."

The sooner the better, said Feely, who pointed out that many affected organisms are also food sources for many commercially important fish – like salmon.

It could also pose a critical problem for coastlines protected by coral reefs, said Chris Langdon, a coral researcher at the University of Miami.
Rising acidity inhibits the buildup of skeletons that form the foundation of reefs, said Langdon. So acidification will likely lead to reef erosion and expose shorelines to the direct assault of waves.

Add rising sea level to the picture and things start looking pretty ugly, he explained.

Also at risk are 25 percent of the world’s marine species, which spend some part of their lives on reefs, said Langdon.

"Coral reefs are kind of like the rain forests of the ocean." And like rain forests, they are home to organisms that produce pharmacologically useful compounds – like the anti-AIDS drug AZT, he said.

The new report is the result of years of work by scientists worldwide and was assembled by top researchers at the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and universities.

The work will also appear in the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/07/05/acidocean_pla.html?category=animals&guid=20060705170030

[my3labs]

There's a very interesting documentary playing here in the US (don't think it has opened yet overseas). It's called "An Inconvenient Truth", hosted by Al Gore. My husband and I saw it last weekend and I highly recommend it.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[Onefirefly]

An Inconvieniant Truth was an excellent presentation and was a great way to get hold of the publics attention! Everyone should see it if they can :)

[my3labs]

I agree. My husband had no interest in seeing it but was really glad that he did. I'm taking my youngest daughter (also vegan) to see it this weekend.

[Kiran]

Schwarzenegger and Blair unite on global warming

From Smh.com.au

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair share the stage at a news conference in Long Beach, California, to announce their climate change strategy.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/01/tonyblair_wideweb__470x289,0.jpg

Gerard Wright in Los Angeles
August 2, 2006

THE Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, have struck an agreement to bypass the Bush Administration and work together to fight global warming.

The unprecedented deal was sealed at a meeting on Monday that featured an all-star cast of entrepreneurs, among them James Murdoch, second son of the News Corporation founder, Rupert Murdoch; Anthony Pratt, chairman of the Melbourne company Pratt Industries USA; the co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin; and Virgin's Richard Branson.

The "nation state" of California, as Mr Schwarzenegger repeatedly referred to it, and Britain will create a market for the trading of carbon emissions, and share economic and scientific research on climate change and non-polluting technology.
Mr Blair and Mr Schwarzenegger were unequivocal about the reason for their union: the newly popular and urgent issue of global warming.
"The evidence of climate change and its danger is overwhelming," Mr Blair said. "It is very hard for anyone to dispute it."

Mr Schwarzenegger, running for his second term as governor, went further: "We saw that there isn't leadership from the Federal Government when it comes to protection of the environment."

The Governor's reference was aimed directly at the White House, which has refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty designed to set restrictions on carbon emissions, and has shown no inclination to enter any international debate on the subject.

Sir Richard said later: "I think businesses can influence leaders who are not worrying enough about our grandchildren."

Also pointing to the Australian Prime Minister, Sir Richard said: "I'm afraid that Bush and [John] Howard, when it comes to global warming, stand out somewhat. Even China is actually doing better than those two leaders."
In the absence of national leadership, American states are making their own decisions about energy conservation.

Last year, California announced its intention to reduce carbon emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, and to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of 25 per cent. In a sense, it was a meeting of two world powers. Britain is ranked fourth among the world's economies. California is fifth.

But the announcement offered little in the way of detail. Among the areas where California is expert is in the design and enforcement of emission standards, regarded as the toughest in the US. Britain can be expected to offer guidance on the trading of carbon credits, where a company with carbon emissions below an agreed limit can trade that difference with a company that has exceeded the limit. This is a relatively recent practice in the US. Such a trading market also exists on the Sydney Futures Exchange.

Mr Brin said the presence of political and business leaders answered the claim by countries such as Australia and the US that the treaty would put them at an economic disadvantage.

"Any signals, milestones, acknowledgement about this issue, particularly the acknowledgement that we can improve the environment and the economy at the same time, is a very strong message," Mr Brin said.

[Vegabond]

Ok, wow I'm on a roll, third topic today...anyhoo back on topic, there appears to be at least two sides on the issue of Global Warming. One group says basically it exists and that CO2 is one of the major contributors, whilst the other group says, nonsense, the world warms and cools reguarily(coolin now) and that in fact, CO2 levels are a direct result of the earth warming or cooling and not the other way around. What sayest thou?

[Andy]

The group that say its due to human activity = most of the worlds scientists.

The group that say its due to natural processes = mainly media outlets who would rather give their readers stories that they want to read instead of than the truth, it makes for better sales :dizzy:

[Vegabond]

The group that say its due to human activity = most of the worlds scientists.

The group that say its due to natural processes = mainly media outlets who would rather give their readers stories that they want to read instead of than the truth, it makes for better sales :dizzy:

Hmm I don't know, I've seen scientific evidence, therefore scientists who claim otherwise. Evidence like sunspots, and historical charts measuring climate change...again I am no expert, I'm looking for facts.

[seitan]

im always curious of who is doing the research, and what gains they may have from the results.

[Andy]

yes the earths temperature does change naturally but the issue is the speed of the change that is occurring now, the world is warming up far faster than before.

Only a few individual scientists deny the IPPC's conclusion that human activity is effecting global temperatures, or say that the human contribution is insignificant. On the other hand an overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPPC, with the main criticism actually being that they are too conservative with their predictions.

A few papers have suggested that climate change could be due to changing solar activity, and this is due to research carried out by just 2 scientists but there has been no increase in solar brightness since the 1970's, so that can be petty much ruled out unless we are talking about ultra violet radiation?

Unfortunately the few scientists who disagree with global warming just get far more media attention. You would struggle to find any articles denying global warming because of human activity in scientific journals, where articles have to be well researched and actually have proof to back up their claims lol.

What do you think?

[seitan]

well, being the misanthrope i am, i cant help believe that humans are to blame for the way the erath (and skies) are changing.

[Andy]

well, when you consider that the troposphere which includes 75% of the worlds atmosphere is only 10 miles thick I would think that the amount of pollution we are pumping into it would quite clearly have an effect, even if that effect is just an addition to natural process.

couldn't you just direct your misanthropy at the GW deniers instead :p

[gogs67]

Hmm I don't know, I've seen scientific evidence, therefore scientists who claim otherwise. Evidence like sunspots, and historical charts measuring climate change...again I am no expert, I'm looking for facts.


If thats from the Oregon Institute then i'd take it with a HUGE pinch of salt. 30,000 scientists signed their petition debunking global warming they claimed, and yet if you look into it anyone with a degree in ANY discipline can sign it! Sociology, Art History, Management fecking Studies - it doesnae matter! Scientists my ass. :D

But it crops up every 15 minutes as proof positive that the big bad environmental lefties were bullying the poor wee industrialists all along.
Show me an online petition with 30,000 meteorologists and I'll be impressed.


As for the historical charts, using them is actually, to me, the most frightening proof of something wrong.!! According to Earths eliptical orbit we hit an ice age every 125,000 years with a roughly 10,000 year warm period inbetween which tails off to cooler times. We should be in that tail off period just now and yet the earths temp is rising. Why? We're not 100% sure but the fact is, it is rising when it shouldn't be!




Facts???

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle516033.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece)

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm)

A friend of mine postdoc-ed with someone who went on to work for Mario Mollina at MIT who I got to meet. That group has published some seminal work in the field, particularly where CFCs are concerned, with Mollina ultimately receiving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. The guy eventually went onto Scripps Oceanographic Institute as well. These groups believe this is a real phenomenon and their data is both empirical and convincing. I certainly believe what they publish and i know there is no ulterior motives to the research i've seen other than the truth!

[Vegabond]

I don't think this guy is from Oregon, but you never know...

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/news/news_shorts/akasofu_4_26_06/written_testimony.php


Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify at this important hearing today.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to state at the outset that it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2. My talk is about the interpretation of the recent trends in the Arctic. For this purpose, I would like to demonstrate that:

1. Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic, compared with the rest of the world. However,
2. arctic climate change consists of both natural change and the greenhouse effect, and thus
3. it is incorrect to conclude that the present warming in the Arctic is due entirely to the greenhouse effect caused by man.
4. Therefore, it is important to find out the contribution of both natural and manmade components to the present climate change in the Arctic.



It is also important to note that both the Arctic and global temperatures began to decrease in about 1940, when our release of greenhouse gases began to increase rapidly. Thus, the increase-decrease between 1920 and 1970 must be natural change. One important task we have is to find out the nature of the warming periods from 1920 to 1940, and from 1970 to the present time. An important question is whether or not the present rise will continue or whether future temperatures will decrease, as was the case during 1940 to 1970.


The IPCC Arctic Group, headed by V. Kattsov, examined the IPCC model simulations of Arctic temperature change for about the same time. Their results are shown in the right-hand side of Figure 2. The simulation results bears no resemblance to the observed, real temperatures in the continental Arctic. If the simulation were reasonably accurate, the results should be similar. This is the most quantitative test to date to examine if the continental arctic warming during the last half of the last century was caused by the manmade greenhouse effect. This comparison shows clearly that much of the prominent warming in the continental Arctic after 1970 was not caused by the human-induced greenhouse effect.

If, in fact, the continental warming indicated in the right-hand side of Figure 2 were caused by the greenhouse effect, this trend should have been intensified during the last few decades. However, that is not the case. The continental warming in the upper part of Figure 3 (which is similar to the left-hand side of Figure 2) is absent during the last 20 years (the lower part of Figure 3). Thus, the continuous increase of the warming is not taking place any more. Instead, intense warming is now in progress in Greenland, which experienced cooling in the recent past.


In conclusion, the nature of the climate change after 1970 should be a matter of great debate. It should not be assumed that this short period of warming is entirely due to the greenhouse effect caused by the actions of man. The prediction of future trends depends greatly on the understanding of the nature of the rise after 1970.

[Vegabond]

As for the historical charts, using them is actually, to me, the most frightening proof of something wrong.!! According to Earths eliptical orbit we hit an ice age every 125,000 years with a roughly 10,000 year warm period inbetween which tails off to cooler times. We should be in that tail off period just now and yet the earths temp is rising. Why? We're not 100% sure but the fact is, it is rising when it shouldn't be!

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html


The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.
This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.


Nature still rules

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

[Vegabond]

Oh here's one concerning the famous Hockey Stick graph!:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html)


This page provides a guide to our work on replicating the "hockey stick" graph made famous by the 2001 IPCC Report. For those new to the subject here are some useful overview papers:
A major investigation into the hockey stick, the Wegman Panel Report, was headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also past Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy.


# The National Research Council Report on the hockey stick was released in June 2006. They accepted our argument that Mann's method is biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped PCs, that uncertainties have been underestimated and that the bristlecone data, on which the famous hockey stick shape depends, should not have been used. They also express very little confidence in the IPCC's claim about the 1990s being the warmest decade in the millennium. But you have to read the report closely to pick all these things up--they bury it in a lot of genteel and deferential prose.