Global Warming

Global Warming Effects

2011-08-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

Global warming is not a problem occurred rather it is a problem created.we the people are responsible for this devastating cause.All these developmental issues made today without concerning to global warming effects that help rise in the globalwarming today is the serious matter of Earth`s declination due to the to the global warming.This globally rising problem signifies that we are the one and only reason for all the declining lives in this nature i.e.we are responsible for the extinction of all the flora and fauna and even it may be the overwhelming problem for us.

Here the polar bears are fighting for their survival, all the polar ice caps and glaciers are melting,also the ozone layer(the protectective layer for all the creatures) is being depleted, living creatures are losing their habitat,and else problems are being faced by the Mother Earth.All these facts happening are trying to warn us.So we must be thinking of the the solution either to avoid or to compensate these problems.It is because we caused it and we are the one to solve these problem.

Many practices are being held today for this serious crisis by the whole world which shows our implementation.I, also being one of us,thinking i must do what i can,made this site so as i could get you all people the information about the whole world on this problem that are on my approach.I hope i could be the part to save this world from this crisis by bringing awareness through this work.

Conservation of flora and fauna in global warming

2008-08-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

Global warming and climate change has become a global issues and concern within the regional and international levels. In the context of national scope, this issues had grew stronger after Indonesia had been selected to become host of the 13th Conference of the Party to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP 13). The venue took place in Denpasar, Bali.

Our earth has already experienced the phenomena of global warming and climate change which leads to hazardous climate events. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released numbers of research which has proved that the earth are warming and climate are changing. The IPCC is an independent scientific body under the UNFCCC.
The phenomena of hazardous climate events has an enormous impact to the environment and human livelihood. Global warming and unpattern climate changes threatened farming for food security, clean water availability, human and ecosystem health. Global warming also threatened the existence of small island nations because of the rising of sea level.

Eventhough climate changes has become global issue, but there are still many communities around the world who has not known and understand what is global warming and climate changes. Many of us living in developing countries are limited to information on global warming and climate changes. For many developing countries like Indonesia, efforts to develop public awareness on global warming and climate changes are urgently needed in order to enhance public understanding on the issues.

In the efforts of spreading awareness on global warming and climate change, Peka Indonesia collaborating with IISES and TMII conducted one day seminar on global warming and climate change. The seminar was conducted on January 22nd 2007 in Indonesian Miniature Garden, Jakarta with seminar theme "Conservation of Flora and Fauna in the middle of changing climate and global warming"

The aim of this one day seminar is to spread out informations on global warming and climate change to the public especially for the staffs of Indonesian Miniature Garden. Participants will received informations on the effect of global warming to the existence of biodiversity, how we can contribute to minimize carbon emission, and how we can actively involve in the conservation of our nature environment. Thus we can minimize the effects of global warming.

On this one day seminar, we invited Dr. Sony Keraf (former minister of environment) as a key note speaker. Dr Keraf gave presentation on the science of global warming and climate change and efforts initiate by countries in the world to adapt to climate change. We also invited 5 other speaker to give prensentation on this seminar, they are, Dr. Suryo Wiyon (Department of Agriculture, IPB), Kuswandono (Gede Pangrango National Park), Dr. Rosicon Ubaidilah (Indonesian Institute of Science), and Arif (Pelangi Foundation). These five speaker gave presentations on the topic of global warming and its effect to the earth environment, effect of global warming to flora and fauna, socializing the result of UNFCCC Bali 2007, and opportunity for public involvement to reduce the effect of global warming. The seminar was attended by 150 participant, mostly from staffs of Indonesian Miniature Garden and several from public in general. We sees that forum-forum seminar like this are still needed in order to spread out the information on global warming and climate change. We envision that through good understanding, the public will increase their awareness toward global warming and will initiate an action to contribute on reducing carbon emission, thus minimalizing the hazardous effects of global warming and climate change.

2008-08-10T20:03:00.000-07:00

The impact of the greenhouse effect on natural terrestrial environments:

The public is increasingly aware of the significance of the greenhouse effect. There is an expectation that Governments will take preventative and remedial action urgently. However, in the ecological arena there is as yet no consensus about how this should be done.

For example, ecological theory suggests that big changes in climate will, over sufficient time, result in major changes in the species composition and relative abundance of species within ecological communities. But these changes could arise because of species adaptation and evolution in situ, or because of migration to 'track' appropriate climatic conditions. Or, of course, a mixture of the two.

In south eastern Australia there has been a great deal of movement of ecological communities as the climate has gradually changed. The very gradual drying and warming as the continent has drifted,north has resulted in the replacement of most of the rainforest communities with dry-environment communities. Very few species that were once part of the rainforest seem to have evolved into new varieties or species adapted to hotter, drier conditions.

This history suggests that the correct conservation strategy for our flora and fauna is for them to be allowed or assisted to migrate as the climatic bands move. Otherwise it appears that they will perish. The Bio-Clim models showing climatic zones moving hundreds of kilometres, in some cases, reinforce the notion that species or ecological community mobility is important. People even talk of whole nature reserves or Parks being 'in the wrong place' and imply that they should somehow be 'moved'. So the strategy that comes to mind as being the most significant is the maintenance or indeed the re-establishment of corridors to provide for the necessary movement.

However this 'evidence' does not capture all of what is going on. An alternative history has played itself out in special circumstances. For example, on permanent islands, temporary islands (like the Grampians) and in quasi-islands caused by sharply differing geological zones, species have often been trapped in situ, with nowhere to go despite the climatic changes. In such cases many (most?) of the species survive despite the physiological stress, and go on to adapt in-situ. This often leads to accelerated speciation. A good example is the south west of Western Australia where the underlying geology is very broken up and diverse. The region has been subjected to far more extreme changes in climate than south eastern Australia because of the sea current switching effect caused by temperature changes and yet, unlike the south east of Australia, the species have clung on in place. The fact they have nowhere to go because they cannot migrate out is not the critical issue. What is important is that many of the plants from outside the zone, that might otherwise have been better adapted and could therefore have displaced the original species, have not been able to invade because of the barrier created by the different soil types.

So it seems that it is not so much physiological stress, but competition that decides whether most species will persist in the face of climate change. The enormous adaptability of most plants and animals is demonstrated by agriculture, domestic gardens, botanic gardens and zoos where species from extraordinarily different original environments can often survive so long as competition is kept at bay.

These special cases suggest that maintaining the stability of the species composition, that is controlling inputs of weeds and pest animals, is the critical strategy. In fact now that human land use changes have changed most natural areas into ?islands? it seems appropriate to use the example of natural ?islands? to guide us in choosing a species survival strategy.

If we adopt the basic ?island? model, then we have to resolve a paradox about stability and change, especially in the case of small ?islands?. Small ?islands? risk the loss of species due to stochastic shocks - fires, droughts, disease, etc. It is important to have corridors or some other means of allowing species to re-colonise any ?de-stocked? habitat. This implies that species mobility is important. However small ?islands? are more prone to invasion by weeds and pests from the surrounding zone. So minimising species mobility is important. (It seems that the ideal solution would be to surround small native habitat ?islands? with a semi-permeable membrane! - to allow in the local natives but prevent the invasion of exotics.) Larger bush areas, being able to provide for their own restocking, do not raise this dilemma so severely.

So it seems as a universal principle we should not encourage the maximum movement of species in the face of the greenhouse effect. Instead, the conservation of native species is generally best served by maintaining as high a level of stability as the normal short run fluctuations of the environment will allow.

Britain`s changing flora & fauna

2008-08-09T23:44:00.000-07:00

Species under efffect

European beaver

Last autumn's news, that beavers were being released into a pen at the Cotswold Water Park as a prelude to full-scale reintroduction, provoked the usual press hysteria about the damming of rivers and the destruction of trees. In fact the animals in question are European beavers, a much more environmentally-friendly animal than their Canadian cousin, and more likely to improve habitats rather than destroy them. Beavers were originally native here, but went extinct sometime during the 16th century, as a result of hunting for their fur. In mainland Europe, they fell to a low point of 1200 individuals during the 19th century, but have since made a strong recovery.

Wild boar

The conservation authorities were somewhat embarrassed when reports of "really wild" boars began to appear in the press - usually as a result of an unfortunate motorist literally bumping into one. As escapees from commercial farms, policy dictated that they should be recaptured or killed, to prevent them establishing a permanent presence. But the legislation ignored the fact that wild boars were originally native to Britain, dying out in the 17th century as a result of over-hunting. Once at large, they are also notoriously difficult to track down. So, despite its controversial status, the wild boar looks set to make a permanent return.

Early spider orchid

During the construction of the Channel Tunnel, almost five million cubic metres of chalk marl was extracted and used to construct a nature reserve, Samphire Hoe near Folkestone. Almost immediately rare orchids began to colonise, and the site is now home to thousands of early spider orchids, one of our rarest species. Common on the continent, this chalk grassland specialist is also found on Ministry of Defence sites and downland reserves in southern England and north Wales. As its name suggests, it usually flowers for a few weeks in late April and early May.

European swallowtail

Larger and paler than the British version, sightings of European swallowtails have increased in the past few years, and the species is now a regular visitor to southern England, where it has occasionally bred. Ironically, the distinctive British swallowtail, confined to a few sites in the Norfolk Broads, remains highly vulnerable, due to its dependence on a single food-plant - milk-parsley. Another migrant butterfly, the clouded yellow, has recently begun to overwinter in Britain, with successful breeding reported from, among other sites, the cliffs above the beach at Bournemouth!

Marsh frog

Introduced to Romney Marsh in Kent in the mid-1930s, this noisy and colourful amphibian is now a familiar sight - and sound - in waterways throughout south-east England. As soon as the sun comes out, the marsh frog - a voracious predator - makes its presence known by puffing out its cheeks and producing a loud croak. However, it is a shy creature, and will retreat into the water as soon as it realises it is being observed. This species is likely to benefit from climate change, which should allow it to extend its range northwards, wherever there is suitable wetland habitat.

Black kite

In the developing world, black kites have learned to hang around rubbish dumps, where they are adept at scavenging for anything even remotely edible. They also have an unappealing, though undoubtedly impressive, trick of snatching food from people's hands, demonstrating their acrobatic flying skills. Whether they can put such talents to the test here is open to question, though their adaptability was revealed last summer when a wandering black kite paired with one of the red kites released as part of the Scottish reintroduction programme. Looks likely to follow hard on the heels of the cattle egret as our next avian colonist.

Striped dolphin

Mainly found in tropical and sub-tropical seas, the striped dolphin is able to survive in British waters because of the warming influence of the North Atlantic Drift. Until recently sightings were confined to the English Channel, but in the past decade or so it has spread farther north, with records from the west coast of Scotland, the North Sea and even the Shetland Isles - just a few degrees south of the Arctic Circle. Most records are, unfortunately, of animals stranded on beaches. When seen at sea it can be distinguished from its commoner relatives by the distinctive pale stripe along its sides.

Humpback whale

Incredible though it may seem, the most acrobatic of all the world's whales is now a regular visitor to our coastal waters, where lucky observers may witness it leaping out of the sea in an action known as "breaching". The original European population of this great whale was wiped out more than 500 years ago, but by the 1980s, after it was granted protection under international law, the species began to appear again. The increase in sightings is likely to be partly a result of the rise in popularity of whale- watching trips, but may also be due to rising sea temperatures caused by global climate change.

Cattle egret

A contender for the title of the world's most successful bird, having managed to colonise Australasia and the Americas, and even reach Antarctica, from its original Old World home. It is now spreading north through Europe at a rapid rate, and looks likely to follow the example set by its close relative, the little egret, and become a permanent addition to our avifauna. As their name suggests, cattle egrets live in close association with livestock, feeding on invertebrates attracted by their dung. In the breeding season adults acquire elegant buffy-orange plumes, which they use in courtship display.

European bee-eater

The attempted breeding by a pair of these exotic and colourful birds in the Wye Valley last summer was, unfortunately, curtailed by a hungry fox. But bee-eaters did successfully nest in a County Durham quarry in 2002, raising two young under the admiring gaze of thousands of birders. Although often considered a Mediterranean species, the bee-eater has spread rapidly northwards during the latter half of the 20th century, and may well make a permanent leap across the Channel during the next few years. Birders would do well to listen for their distinctive bubbling call, given by migrating flocks flying high overhead.difficult to track down.

The departing

Snowy owl

In 1967, birders on the island of Fetlar in Shetland celebrated the unprecedented breeding of snowy owls, the very first time this arctic species had nested in Britain. They had extended their range southwards as the result of a brief period of climatic cooling in north-eastern Scotland and Scandinavia. Sadly for Harry Potter fans, as temperatures rose, conditions became unsuitable for this magnificent owl, and breeding last occurred in 1975. Today, snowy owls occasionally turn up as wandering visitors to Shetland and the Western Isles, but are unlikely to breed here again.

White-beaked dolphin

Despite a welcome increase in sightings of whales and dolphins in British and Irish waters, this species appears to be heading into a possibly terminal decline. Scientists monitoring sightings and beach strandings of white-beaked dolphins have found a dramatic drop in numbers. This is most likely a result of a rapid rise in sea temperatures, itself due to global climate change, which affects this cool-water species more than most. Unless the warming trend is reversed, the white-beaked dolphin is likely to disappear first from the shallow waters around our west coast, then from the cooler North Sea.

Greater horseshoe bat

The rarest of our 17 species of bat - and indeed one of our rarest mammals gets its name from the distinctive horseshoe-shaped flap of skin around its nose, which aids it in the process of echolocation. It is confined to south-west England and south Wales, probably because the mild climate of these areas enables it to feed during the winter. The relict Welsh population, in particular, suffers from low genetic diversity, and without conservation efforts may not survive much longer. This bat's rapid decline is due to changes in traditional farming practices and the consequent reduction in insect food.

Ptarmigan

One of a trio of montane specialists likely to suffer from the effects of global warming on their Scottish highland home, the others being snow bunting and dotterel. These all depend on the delicate arctic-alpine ecosystem of the high tops. Each year the decrease in snow cover on the Cairngorm plateau, and the resulting changes in vegetation and insect life, threaten these rare and fascinating birds with extinction. Ptarmigan are the only British birds to turn completely white in winter for camouflage - which may not seem quite such a good idea if the snow disappears.

Wood white

This delicate butterfly thrives on "edge" habitats, such as open rides through woodland. It enjoyed a brief population boom in the 60s and 70s, thanks partly to the legacy of Dr Beeching: the wholesale closure of rural railway lines created a temporary glut of new habitat. Since then, like so many of our woodland butterflies, it has declined in numbers. It did appear to be thriving in Ireland, until observant scientists discovered that most Irish "wood whites" in fact belonged to a different species - the two only being told apart by examining their genitalia under the microscope.

Wild cat

This legendary and almost impossibly elusive predator faces rapid extinction. This is not, as with so many other creatures, because of climate change or modern farming practices, but simply because interbreeding with feral and domestic moggies has so diluted the gene pool, that there may now only be a few hundred truly wild cats in existence. Most of those that do remain are in the remotest parts of the Grampian Mountains and the Scottish Highlands. Not always easy to tell apart from hybrids, pure-bred cats show distinctive vertical black stripes on their coat and black rings around their tails.

European tree frog

A small, usually bright green amphibian, which is, however, able to change colour at will, and may appear in various shades from lime green to greyish-brown. More often heard than seen, its repetitive call has been compared to a barking dog or quacking duck. Once thought to be an alien species introduced here by humans, new evidence suggests that a long-established colony in the New Forest did, in fact, comprise native animals. Unfortunately this was discovered too late to protect the tree frog, which now appears to be extinct in Britain.

Wart-biter bush cricket

The wart-biter bush-cricket is just managing to cling on in five widely separated populations on ancient chalk grassland and heathland in southern Britain, from the South Downs to Wiltshire. It is one of our largest and most impressive insects: almost four centimetres long, bright green, and with fearsome jaws that make short work of its smaller relatives. Despite its common name, this species has probably always been rare and localised in Britain - the English name is a translation of the Latin "verrucivorus" - pertaining to warts.

Stinking hawk's beard

Despite its off-putting name, this little plant is attractive in a modest way, with golden-yellow flowers appearing from June to August. When crushed, the leaves give out the characteristic "bitter almond" scent of cyanide. Unfortunately this member of the dandelion family does not seem to have inherited its commoner cousin's survival skills: the last native specimen was observed by a bungalow at Dungeness, Kent, in 1980. Soon afterwards it was reintroduced there, under the protective eye of, among others, the late film director Derek Jarman. Sadly most of his specimens were eaten by rabbits, the stinking hawk's beard's most frequent nemesis.

Red-backed shrike

During the mid-1990s, following a rapid decline, this diminutive predator became the latest species to go extinct as a British breeding bird. The last pair hung on in the East Anglian brecks, where warm summers provided just enough large insects to feed their young. This decline in insect life, due mainly to the overuse of agricultural pesticides, is undoubtedly the main cause of the red-backed shrike's disappearance. However, there is a possibility that climate change could benefit the species, with warmer, drier summers and a more continental-type climate recreating the right conditions for it to return.

Flora and fauna at risk on shrinking meadows

2008-08-09T21:34:00.000-07:00

Flora and fauna at risk on shrinking meadows

In damp fields at various sites around the country, scientists are hard at work counting plants, as part of a major new project to save Britain's last few remaining floodplain meadows.

Once common across the floodplains of England and Wales, these flower-strewn meadows declined dramatically due to urbanisation and changes in farming practice. Since the 1950s, 98 per cent of species- rich meadows have been lost, leaving less than 1,000 hectares scattered around the country.

The remaining fragments, though protected by national and European law, are at risk from a range of factors including climate change and inappropriate management. By carrying out detailed surveys during the next 10 years, scientists hope to find out what is happening to them and how we can protect them.

Floodplain meadows evolved over hundreds of years and were highly prized for their natural fertility, maintained through regular winter flooding. Every year they yielded a valuable hay crop, and then provided grazing for animals. Today, they help alleviate flooding through winter storage of floodwaters and provide a habitat for an enormous range of plants and animals, including butterflies, birds such as curlews and snipe, and flowers such as the rare snake's head fritillary.

"Due to their position on floodplains, these meadows are particularly sensitive to changes in rainfall pattern," explains David Gowing, professor of botany at The Open University, which is hosting the project. "And being species-rich, they are sensitive to the increasing burden of nutrients and pollution from the wider river catchment and the atmosphere."

But understanding what affects floodplain meadows and how, is no easy task. Emma Rothero is the project's outreach co-ordinator, also based at The Open University. She explains: "In the past, changes in farming practice were responsible for the meadows' disappearance but now they are threatened by things like gravel extraction and development, which can reduce the amount of water reaching the meadows, and by flood defences.

"Too much water can be as damaging as too little, as the plants do not tolerate being flooded into the growing season. Other factors which cause changes in nutrient levels, such as sewage treatment works and increases in fertiliser application in the catchment, can also be a problem."

By monitoring the floodplains over a long period of time the scientists hope to amass a large database of information. But the work involved is painstaking. "These are botanically rich environments with up to 40 species per square metre," says Rothero.

"At the moment we are staking out a number of sites around the country with one-metre by one-metre quadrats. A quadrat is basically a square on the ground. On one site you might have 200 quadrats. You record all the plants within each quadrat. On some sites we are taking samples of soil and hay and looking at the nutrient levels, and on some we are recording water levels using electronic data loggers. If you collect this data over a long period of time, you can see how the plant species change in response to water and nutrient levels.

"The aim is to get good scientific information to people like landowners, conservation officers, site managers and policy-makers, so they can make decisions about site and catchment management. We plan to run workshops and courses, and to make the scientists accessible to those with questions and issues on wildflower floodplain meadows."

The Floodplain Meadows Project is hosted by The Open University in partnership with the Environment Agency, Natural England, The Grasslands Trust, the Field Studies Council, The Wildlife Trusts and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. It has been set up with funding from the Esmee Fairburn Foundation and the Garfield Weston Foundation, but the team needs to raise more funds to support the project in the long term, says Rothero. "If anyone wants to support us, we'd be interested in hearing from them."

Polar flora and fauna under global warming impact

2008-08-09T21:15:00.000-07:00

In agreement with the different climate models developed by researchers and confirmed by the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the poles are the regions of the world where climate change is and will be the most rapid. This development is not without impact on the organisms living in those regions, some of which are the subject of increasing concern amongst biologists.

It's getting warm at the poles!

The trend towards Arctic warming is generalised, and in some regions the temperature has risen by more than 3°C over the past 50 years. This is more than ten times faster than the rest of the planet, where the average increase was only 0.6°C over the past century.

At the other end of the world, and although warming at present only affects the Antarctic peninsula, the phenomenon, although it has recently slowing, is just as marked: 4-5°C in the past 50 years…

Early trends in the south…
Because of the effect of temperature on the distribution of living organisms in these extreme environments, such changes are not without consequences.
"On the Antarctic peninsula, only two flowering plants were seen on exceptional occasions in the past," points out Pete Convey, from the BAS (British Antarctic Survey). "But over the past thirty years, antarctic grass and pearlwort have been developing in the south, as are several species of moss. All are benefiting from a lengthening in the periods of thaw."

Other effects are seen in the marine environment, following a regional trend towards a halt to the spread of pack ice. This ice is necessary to ensure the winter development of juvenile krill (a small crustacean which looks like a shrimp and upon which an impressive range of predators are dependent) and there has been a reduction in the frequency of successful breeding years. Their predators are also suffering: Wayne Trivelpiece from the NOAA (the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has thus seen the disappearance of the chinstrap penguin from the multi-species colony he has been studying for nearly 30 years near to the Polish Arctowski research station: "It is probably the reduction in krill fecundity which is the reason for the decline of Adélie and chinstrap penguins on the Antarctic peninsula." The same effects have been seen in South Georgia, where Keith Reid & John Croxall from the BAS have shown that the growing competition for krill between sea lions and Macaroni penguins has led to a marked decline in the latter.

… and much disquiet in the north

As made clear a few months ago by the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) report in Reykjavik, the effects of global warming on fauna and flora are even more pronounced in the Arctic. Terry Callaghan, from the Abisko Scientific Research Centre in Sweden, explains: "On land, amongst other phenomena, warming has caused a gradual melting of the permafrost (permanently frozen ground), with the disappearance of hundreds of pools and lakes (because they have drained into the thawed soil) and the flora and fauna which inhabit them. We have also seen a gradual spread of forest coverage to the north, to the detriment of the tundra, where millions of migrating birds have their breeding grounds."

"Because the forests are darker, the albedo (percentage of reflected solar radiation) of these areas has fallen and thus created a positive retroaction which enhances warming," adds Glenn Patrick Juday, from the University of Alaska. "At the same time, we are seeing an increase in the number of fires and massive swarms of insect pests in several regions around the Arctic landmass."

The situation is no better in the Arctic Ocean: the average surface area of pack ice (measured at the end of each summer) has shrunk in 30 years by practically a million square kilometres (around 15 to 20%). This gradual shrinkage is causing increasing problems for the species associated with sea ice, whether these are single-cell algae, the copepod crustaceans which graze on them, the fish which hide in them and so on, up the chain to that most emblematic animal of the North Pole, the polar bear.

Polar bears facing major problems
According to Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta in Canada, and his colleagues, shrinkage of the pack ice has caused a reduction in the numbers of ringed seals as well as in their accessibility for polar bears, for whom they are the principal prey. This is of crucial importance for the female bears when it comes to building up fat reserves before fasting for several months in winter and giving birth to their young. Indeed, researchers have shown that in Hudson Bay, each week the spring thaw advances represents a 10 kg loss of weight for female bears by the time they enter the snow den where their young will be born. In addition, warming also increases the frequency of winter rains and the collapse of these dens.

Sadly, there are few prospects for an improvement in the Arctic pack ice, because climate models agree on a continuous rise in the average temperature over the 100 years to come: up to 7°C for the ocean and up to 10°C in winter. The ACIA report even suggests the possible disappearance of summer pack ice between now and 2100…

Dying of heat in the Antarctic
On the other hand, at the other end of the globe, the formidable mass of the Antarctic ice sheet may protect the Antarctic Ocean from global warming. But at a local level, and once again in the context of rising temperatures in the peninsula, a series of joint studies, headed in particular by Lloyd Peck from the BAS and Hans-Otto Pörtner from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, recently put forward new reasons for concern. Their research on several marine invertebrate species has shown that the oxygen supply necessary for several vital functions, such as reproduction, is easily disturbed by a rise in water temperature. In fact, a 4°C rise would be sufficient to condemn several populations, or even some species with a limited distribution, to extinction.

Trees of Andalucia on threat of global warming

2008-08-09T21:01:00.000-07:00

Spanish Fir
Pinsapo
Abies Pinsapo

In 1837, during one of his exploratory visits to the south of the Iberian Peninsula, the Swiss Botanist Edmond Boisser discovered a new species of tree: Abies Pinsapo, popularly known as the pinsapo pine or Spanish fir.

The tree can grow up to 30m tall and live as long as 200 years. It has tiny needle-like leaves, which are extremely sharp and cylindrical in shape, and although this foliage appears lightweight, it throws out a very dense shade on the ground.

Found only in the southern mountains of Andalucia and in the north of Morocco, botanists discovered that the pinsapo had been around since the Tertiary geological time period - before the Ice Age! How could it have survived?

What probably happened is that the climatic changes occurring during the Pleistocene period were not as intense in Andalucia as might be assumed. In that case, the glaciers of the Ice Age that reached down from the North may have stopped short of these mountains, thus saving the species from extinction.

What the elements couldn't destroy man almost did. At the beginning of the last century, due to extensive cultivation, pinsapo numbers were dwindling. In 1964 there were just 700 hectares of pinsapo forests remaining. Now, thanks to careful forestry management, there are 5000 hectares.

However, just as this distinctive tree looked set to last until the next Ice Age, a new threat has appeared - the fungus 'heterobasidium annosum'. Invisible but deadly, the fungus attacks the roots, moves up the trunk and finally brings the tree down. Experts consider that changes in the climate (local effects of global warming) have weakened the species' resistance to this fungus, which in normal circumstances would not pose a threat.

So far, the response of the regional government has been to burn infected specimens to prevent the spread of the disease. Ecologists are calling for a seed bank to ensure the survival of the species. In the future pinsapos could then be planted in areas where the effects of global warming have been less noticeable, such as Sierra Nevada and Cazorla.

Valuable SeaGrass faces globalwarming threat

2008-08-09T20:46:00.000-07:00

Valuable seagrass faces global warming threat

GENEVA: Seagrass meadows, which are vital for the survival of much marine life and a source of household materials in Europe and Africa, face a mounting threat from global warming, a report said on Friday.

The report, from the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), said the submerged meadows -- many around the Mediterranean -- could be saved through concerted action by governments and scientists.

"Seagrass habitats are already declining due to increasing water temperatures, algae (seaweed) growth and light reduction, which are all effects of global change," said IUCN specialist Mats Bjork, one of the authors of the report.

The report said the grass -- flowering plants found in shallow waters around the globe -- provides food and shelter for prawn and fish populations and is used traditionally as mattress filling, roof covering and for medicines.

If much of it were to disappear, a wide range of species -- including dugongs, sea turtles, sea urchins and seabirds who feed on it -- would also come under increased threat, according to the report.

The report said some of the healthiest seagrass areas known to exist today were off the North African coast of Libya and Tunisia in areas where there had been little industrial or tourism development.

Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of IUCN's Global Marine Program, said the meadows could be saved by making seagrass more resilient to climbing temperatures through mixing genetically more diverse populations.

The report, issued at a conference in Barcelona, said the introduction of protected areas and linking the underwater meadows to nearby mangrove plantations or coral reefs would also give a huge boost to their chances of survival.

Lundin said it was also vital to extend research into how seagrass can be protected -- an effort already promoted by IUCN that would require governments and scientific institutions to devote resources and time.

How global warming is changing Animal kingdom

2008-07-30T18:53:00.000-07:00

Scientists take note of shifts in animal behavior

The planet is warming, humans are mostly to blame and plants and animals are going to dramatic lengths to cope. That's the consensus of a number of recent studies that used wildlife to gauge the extent of global warming and its effects.

While the topic of climate change is contentious - including whether the planet is actually heating up - a growing number of documented shifts in traits and behaviors in the wild kingdom is leading many scientists to conclude the world is changing in unnatural ways.

Marmots end their hibernations about three weeks earlier now compared to 30 years ago. Polar bears today are thinner and less healthy than those of 20 years ago. Many fish species are moving northward in search of cooler waters. A fruitfly gene normally associated with hot, dry conditions has spread to populations living in traditionally cooler southern regions.

While We Argue...

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit and many scientists believe greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are to blame. Left unattended, they warn, temperatures may rise by an additional 2-10 degrees by the end of the century. In the leading computer models, it follows that polar ice will melt and seas would rise drastically, threatening coastal communities around the globe.

A handful of scientists dispute the data. Others say humans aren't to blame.

Terry Root, an environmental science and policy professor at Stanford University, says that as humans argue about thermometer readings, animals are providing evidence that should be figured in to scientific and political decisions.

Animals are "just reacting to what's going on out there," Root says. "And if their behavior is very similar to what we expect with what's going on with global warming - if they're shifting and they're moving, if they're changing their breeding time by 5 days in 10 years - we can use that information to support what the thermometers are also showing."

Climate change can occur naturally, but what worries many scientists the most - and the reason why they don't think this is part of a natural cycle - is the rapid rate at which the current changes are happening - changes that are being reflected in the responses of wildlife.

In a 2003 study published in the journal Nature, Root and her colleagues analyzed numerous studies involving wild plant and animals for changes due to global warming. Out of the nearly 1,500 species examined, the researchers found that about 1,200 exhibited temperature-related changes consistent with what scientists would expect if they were being affected by global warming.

The authors highlighted four possible ways that species might respond to rising temperatures, all of which have been documented by other studies and researchers.

Divide and Destroy

The first is for species to migrate northward or move to higher elevations. The ubiquitous presence of humans, however, is making this option difficult for some species.

"The thing that is very, very different from prehistoric times is that there are now K-Mart parking lots these species have to cross as they try to move north to get away from the heat down south," Root told LiveScience.

As a result, species that can't adapt to urban or agricultural environments become isolated, their lines of retreat cut off.

In a study published last year in the journal PLoS Biology, Elizabeth Hadly, a biologist at Stanford University, examined fossil records from past warming periods and concluded that global warming can reduce genetic diversity by affecting the connections between species populations.

The best way to ensure species survival is to have large, interconnected populations that are genetically diverse, Hadly explained in an email interview.

This means that even if the genetic diversity of a species as a whole is high, if the individuals are scattered and prevented from interbreeding, they can become just as vulnerable to disease and external threats as a species with a small population and low genetic diversity. Like the military strategy of divide-and-conquer, a group that together might have had the resources to withstand an assault can be picked off one by one if split up.

Connections among individuals within a species aren't the only things that can be disrupted: global warming can also threaten the ties that bind members of different species to one another.

Many biologists, including Darwin, once believed that species responded to temperature changes as a group, thus preserving their relationships to one another. But scientists are finding that this is often not the case.

Instead, different species respond to environmental stressors in different ways, and this can lead to what Root calls the "tearing apart of communities."

Intricate Connections

The second prediction was that the timing of natural events like flowering, migration, and egg-laying could shift. Ecosystems are intricately connected webs, and even if a species doesn't rely on temperature and daylight cues to trigger certain behaviors, it may interact with other species that do.

"Thousands of years of co-evolution could easily be disrupted," Root says.

Third, the body size and behaviors of species may change in response to rising temperatures. For example, scientists believe that as a general rule, bodies become smaller in response to general warming and larger with cooling.

A 2003 study led by Philip Gingerich, a geological sciences professor at the University of Michigan, looked at horse fossils from a warming period that occurred 55 million years ago. They found that as temperatures rose, the fossils shrank, from the size a small dog to a house cat. The researchers believed the dwarfing might have resulted from the horses eating plants whose tissues were low in protein but high in toxic compounds - plants that flourished in the carbon dioxide-rich environment of the time.

Finally, species can undergo genetic changes. This last prediction has been documented in at least two species, the red squirrel and the fruitfly Drosophila.

Business as Usual?

Not all scientists are convinced humans have anything to do with climate change or the shifts seen in the animal world.

Michael Patrick, an environmental science professor at the University of Virginia, believes the current warming is part of a natural cycle.

"It's what you'd expect," Patrick told LiveScience. "It's not all a result of human induced climate change. Half of it is at best, probably less than half."

Even if humans are causing global warming, Patrick said, there is little we can do to change it. "If it is an issue, it is one that we will have to adapt to."

Patrick believes the wildlife changes are likewise natural.

"With all due respect, you would expect to see some slight changes in the distribution of plants and animals as the planet warms - or as the planet cools for that matter," Patrick said. "It's hardly newsworthy."

If anything, most species would benefit from an earlier spring, and focusing on global warming is a harmful distraction from more serious problems afflicting wildlife, Patrick says. "If you asked me which one we should worry about more - changes in climate or human-caused changes in habitat - I would say that the latter is much more important."

"Overall climate will change quite a bit," Patrick said. "However, if you change characteristics of the surface - if you turn forest into farmland - that will have more severe effects on wildlife than merely changing the temperature a degree or two."

Stressful Future

Ecosystems and wildlife aren't the only things that increasing temperatures will affect.

"Global warming is going to be a big stress to all animals, including Homo sapiens," said Root.

A recent report issued by the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization, warned that rising temperatures could exacerbate health risks such as asthma for the elderly, the infirm and the poor, and especially for those in poor countries.

Even if all pollution were stopped today, the climate will warm at least another degree by the year 2100 and seas will rise 4 inches (11 centimeters), according to one recent study. Another report says warming is unstoppable through the year 2400. Despite the dire warnings, many scientists believe it may not be too late to reverse the trend.

The Pew report suggests creating transitional habitats that link natural areas as a way to help migrating species. Also, alleviating other environmental stressors like habitat destruction could help reduce their combined effects with global warming.

Root is encouraged by the fact that many cities are following higher environmental standards, even if state and national governments are dragging their feet.

In the end, she believes, it will be the relatively small things that people do that will have the biggest impact: "Hummer sales, thank heaven, are dropping since gas prices have gone up, and hybrid [car] sales have gone up. It's that type of stuff."

Extinction

2008-07-30T18:37:00.000-07:00

Polar bear 'extinct within 100 years'

The polar bear could be driven to extinction by global warming within 100 years, warns an ecology expert.

The animal, which relies on sea ice to catch seals, is already starting to suffer the effects of climate changes in areas such as Hudson Bay in Canada.

Scientists say Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of up to 9% per decade. Arctic summers could be ice-free by mid-century. Dr Andrew Derocher, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, has used the data to assess the impact on the Arctic's top predator.

Top carnivore

He believes the polar bear could disappear in the wild by the end of the century unless the pace of global warming slows.

He told "Polar bears are a species whose whole life history is dependent on having sea ice.

"As the sea ice changes in distribution and pattern we can expect this to have fundamental changes on the ecology of polar bears.

"As the sea ice disappears, so will the polar bears."

Polar bears are uniquely adapted to survival in the Arctic. They are the world's largest land predator, feeding mainly on seals.

They use the sea ice as a floating platform to catch prey and they travel across it on their way to their dens.

British polar expert Dr Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge says the bear faces a gloomy future unless it is able to change its habits.

"It could be that a polar bear could adapt to a new habitat and adopt habits like the brown bear in Alaska which hunts salmon in streams and other small animals on land," he said.

Fragile ecology

Scientists believe that Ursus maritimus, the "sea bear", evolved about 200,000 years ago from brown bear ancestors.

Whether it can "change its spots" and behave more like a brown bear is another matter.

Lynn Rosentrater, climate scientist in the WWF International Arctic Programme, thinks it unlikely.

There have been cases of polar bears scavenging in bins for food in summer, she said, but the animals need seal fat to get through the winter.

"In the absence of sea ice the whole basis of polar bear ecology ceases to exist," she explained. Polar bears are currently found in Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada, Russia, Greenland and Norway.

Populations in southern limits such as Hudson Bay are at most risk of dying out.

Bears stand most chance of surviving, in isolated groups, in the western Arctic or the Canadian archipelago.

Polar Bears in recent decades

2008-07-30T02:35:00.000-07:00

What has been happening to polar bears in recent decades?

Scott L. Schliebe
Polar Bear Project Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/MMM
Anchorage, AK

Polar bears have long captured the attention of the general public but probably at no time in the past have they been more in the forefront of the public's imagination than today. Today's heightened interest in polar bears may be due in part to an enhanced understanding of the ecology of polar bears, their environment, and an increased interest in Arctic issues brought on by concerns for climate change. Results of years of research and studies are now available to an interested public, and efforts to communicate this information to the public has been more effective in recent years than in the past. As a result the current public is generally well-informed and educated regarding the ecology of polar bears. This public, unlike previous publics, has a variety of communication tools that enable it to interact and communicate more effectively with researchers and managers.

What have we learned? We now know that polar bears are not a single large homogeneous population that roams throughout the Arctic. Instead groups of polar bears referred to as stocks or populations, are distributed throughout the Arctic. Research begun in the late 1960s and continuing today also provides a thorough backdrop of information on population demographics, systematically analyzed data on population boundaries, population movements, population size, reproductive and survival parameters, and other useful information about biological, physiological, and ecological aspects of polar bears.

We also realize that polar bears do not occur in large numbers; their ability to replace individuals in the population is very limited and population growth is extremely slow; they are long-lived creatures, which helps to offset the low reproductive potential; their populations fluctuate in response to natural factors such as climate and prey availability; and, populations can also be impacted by humans through factors such as hunting, oil spills, shipping, and other activities. We also realize that the level of human presence and activity in the Arctic continues to build. As a result the potential for humans to impact polar bears has never been greater than today.

Technologically, researchers have been blessed in the last 30 years. Advances in satellite telemetry allowed researchers to follow individual bears over time and greatly enhanced our knowledge of movements and population bounds. Infrared thermal sensory equipment is providing promise in detecting polar bear dens beneath the snow. Extended time-series of data now available for some populations documents trends that were previously not apparent. Improvements in aircraft and vessel transportation have provided access to a larger portion of the range of polar bears than was previously accessible. Finally, technologic advances have allowed for multi-disciplinary Arctic research, which is in many cases supported by polar-class icebreakers. All of these advances plus greater understanding of population dynamics and population modeling now allow for greater precision in making management decisions and a better understanding of risks and consequences of management actions.

In the past, one of the greatest saving graces for polar bear populations was the fact that their habitat was relatively pristine and secure from alteration. In fact a very large portion of the high arctic was void of any human presence. Hence at that time the greatest concern for polar bear populations were over harvest and human development that was occurring at the fringes of the range of polar bears.

Polar bears and their prey have evolved to living in the extreme conditions of the Arctic. Polar bears and seals are dependent on sea-ice for foraging, resting, and reproduction. The Arctic ecosystem was shaped by climate and continues to be driven today by climate. Polar bears and ice seals, primarily ringed seals, serve as key indicators of the effects of climate change on the Arctic environment. Today, polar bear populations are facing threats previously unprecedented during recorded history in the Arctic. Recent climate change scenarios based upon modeling of climate trend data predict that the Arctic region will experience major changes in the upcoming decades. On the most drastic end of the spectrum one model predicts that the Arctic basin may be void of ice within 50 years. Other models have shown that ice thickness has decreased by 40% during the past 30 years and the average annual extent of ice coverage in the polar region has diminished substantially, with an average annual reduction of over 1 million square kilometers.

While the ultimate or progressively evolving effects of climatic change on polar bear populations is not certain, we do recognize that even minor climate changes could likely have a profound effect on polar bears. The following is from the IUCN/Species Survival Commission, Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) web site and in summary indicates the following:

Climate changes on prey species will have a negative effect on polar bears

increased snow can result in reduced success in successfully entering seal birth lairs

decreased snow or increased seasonal rain patterns could effect seal pupping by not providing adequate snow for construction of birth lairs or if rain fall by collapsing birth lairs thus reducing seal productivity

prey reductions could effect polar bear condition and ultimately cub production and survival

Changes that alter the period of ice coverage could affect distribution and impact polar bears

bears may spend greater amounts of time on land

extended use of terrestrial areas would ultimately effect physical condition of bears when forced to rely on fat stores

decreased physical condition could effect production and survival

bears using deteriorating pack ice may experience increased energetic costs associated with movements and swimming

Denning could be impacted by unusual warm spells

access to high quality denning areas may be limited or restricted
use of less desirable denning habitat could have impacts on reproduction and survival
rain or warming could directly cause snow dens to collapse or be opened to ambient conditions

loss of thermal insulative properties in opened dens could affect litter survival

As a case in point, in Western Hudson Bay researchers have collected demographic information on polar bears since 1981. Over this time frame and location the sea ice breakup has been occurring earlier. The earlier breakup has been related to the poorer condition of polar bears and there is a correlation between the earlier breakup and a decadal scale pattern of warming air temperatures during the spring between 1950 and 1990. It appears that earlier breakup caused by warmer temperatures has resulted in declines in physical and reproductive parameters of polar bears in this area. This is the only study to date to demonstrate the effects of changed environment resulting from climate changes, and a corresponding effect on polar bears. Climate change is not uniform in all areas of the Arctic, however. Since Hudson Bay is located at the southern most extent of the range of polar bears, findings here may be a forewarning of changes to come in future years for other areas of the Arctic. Clearly, climate change and its effect on sea ice and polar bears should be closely monitored in future years.

Environmental contaminants in the form of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) pose an additional area of increased concern for polar bears. Recent documentation of baseline contaminant levels in the circumpolar environment and in key species has dramatically expanded the knowledge of regional presence and levels of these pollutants over the past 10 years. Polar bears, as an apical predator that tends to amplify the accumulation organochlorines compounds, are a perfect candidate for studies in evaluating trends. We now know that polar bears inhabiting certain areas of the Arctic exhibit elevated levels of organochlorines, particularly PCB's (poly chlorinated biphenyls) while populations inhabiting other areas have lower levels. Laboratory experiments involving elevated levels of organochlorines have been associated with a range of effects including neurological, reproductive, and immunological changes. Studies are continuing to evaluate the effect of persistent organic pollutants on essential life functions of polar bears and other marine animals with an emphasis on evaluating immune and hormonal systems.

International involvement in polar bear conservation dates back to 1965 when scientists from Canada, Norway, Denmark, USSR, and the United States met in Fairbanks to discuss polar bear conservation due to widespread concern that populations were being over harvested. Until this time there had been very little management of polar bears in the Arctic and no coordinated effort among arctic countries. Harvest rates were rising rapidly in most areas except Russia which had enacted a ban on hunting in 1956. The Fairbanks meeting resulted in the formation of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) whose mission was to coordinate polar bear research and management programs on an international basis and to exchange information on each country's programs.

Members of the PBSG and the countries they represent developed and negotiated the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (Agreement), which was signed in Oslo, Norway in May, 1973. Among other conditions the Parties agreed through Article VII to "conduct national research programs on polar bears, particularly research relating to the conservation and management of the species. They shall, as appropriate, coordinate such research with the research carried out by other Parties, consult with other Parties on management of migrating polar bear populations, and exchange information on research and management programs, research results, and data on bears taken." The PBSG meets every three to five years with a goal of advancing the principles of the Agreement. The most recent meeting was held June 2001 in Nuuk, Greenland. The proceedings of the working group meetings are published in the IUCN series.

Highlights of recent activities include: conducting ecotoxological studies to evaluate potential effects on polar bear immune and hormone systems in the Svalsbard Island complex; continuing efforts to refine population boundaries and better understand sustainable harvest levels or the effects of harvests on populations; evaluating new techniques to conduct aerial population surveys; evaluating the relationship between bears, seals, and sea ice conditions; population genetics studies; and research to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal sensory technology to detect polar bear dens beneath snow.

2008-07-30T02:03:00.000-07:00

Gore Shares Peace Prize for Climate Change Work

By WALTER GIBBS and SARAH LYALL

Published: October 13, 2007

OSLO, Oct. 12 — Former Vice President Al Gore, who emerged from his loss in the muddled 2000 presidential election to devote himself to his passion as an environmental crusader, was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nation network of scientists.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised both "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change."

The prize is a vindication for Mr. Gore, whose cautionary film about the consequences of climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," won the 2007 Academy Award for best documentary, even as conservatives in the United States denounced it as alarmist and exaggerated.

"I will accept this award on behalf of all the people that have been working so long and so hard to try to get the message out about this planetary emergency," Mr. Gore said Friday in Palo Alto, Calif., standing with his wife, Tipper, and four members of the United Nations climate panel. "I’m going back to work right now," he said.

The award was also a validation for the United Nations panel, which in its early days was vilified by those who disputed the scientific case for a human role in climate change. In New Delhi, the Indian climatologist who heads the panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, said that science had won out over skepticism.

Mr. Gore, a vociferous opponent of the Bush administration on a range of issues, including the Iraq war, is the second Democratic politician to win the peace prize this decade. Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002.

Mr. Carter, himself a critic of Mr. Bush, was 78 when he won the prize. But Mr. Gore is just 59 and an active presence in American politics, if only as a large thorn in Mr. Bush’s side — and in the side of Democrats worried that he might challenge them for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Mr. Bush, has regularly said that he will not run for president again. But Friday’s announcement touched off renewed interest in his plans.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, did not go overboard in his praise. "Of course we’re happy for Vice President Gore and the I.P.C.C. for receiving this recognition," he said.

In Oslo, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the peace committee, was asked whether the award could be seen as criticism of the Bush administration, which did not subscribe to the Kyoto treaty to cap greenhouse gases. He replied that the Nobel was not meant to be a "kick in the leg to anyone" — the Norwegian expression for "kick in the teeth."

"We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, and challenge them to think again and to say what they can do to conquer global warming," Dr. Mjoes said in Oslo.

The four other members of the peace committee generally refuse to comment on the thinking behind the award, which in recent years has moved toward issues at a degree of remove from armed conflict, like social justice, poverty remediation and environmentalism. But in a telephone interview, Berge Furre, one of the four, said, "I hope this will have an effect on the attitudes of Americans as well as people in other countries."

In its formal citation, the Nobel committee called Mr. Gore "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." It praised the United Nations panel, which is made up of 2,000 scientists and is considered the world’s leading authority on climate change, for creating "an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

While the world’s major environmental groups all praised Mr. Gore for his role in raising public awareness, they praised the panel for, in the words of Greenpeace International, "meticulous scientific work."

The two approaches both play a part, scientists said Friday. "The noble prize is honoring the science and the publicity, and they’re necessarily different," said Spencer R. Weart, a historian at the American Institute of Physics.

Mr. Gore, who announced he would give his portion of the $1.5 million prize money to the nonprofit organization he founded last year, the Alliance for Climate Protection, said he was honored to share the prize with the panel, calling it "the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis."

Mr. Pachauri said, "The message that it sends is that the Nobel Prize committee realized the value of knowledge in tackling the problem of climate change." He said the award was an acknowledgment of the panel’s "impartial and objective assessment of climate change."

The climate panel, established in 1988, has issued a series of increasingly grim reports in the last two decades assessing issues surrounding climate change. It is expected to issue another report in the next few months, before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Indonesia on Dec. 3. Some 180 countries are scheduled to begin negotiations there on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the climate adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and a leading contributor to the United Nations panel’s reports, said they were the result of "a painstaking process of self-interrogation."

The committee acts at "about the highest level of complexity you can manage in such a scientific assessment," Dr. Schellnhuber said in a telephone interview from Milan.

For a scientist, he said, taking part on the climate change panel entails considerable sacrifices. "It drives you absolutely crazy," Dr. Schellnhuber said. "You fly to distant places; you stay up all night negotiating; you listen to hundreds of sometimes silly interventions. You go through so many mundane things to produce the big picture."

The Nobel prizes are meant to be apolitical, and are awarded independently of one another. (The peace prize is awarded in Oslo, while the others are awarded by various academies in Sweden.) But a number of recent winners have expressed their opposition to Bush administration policies.

The 2005 literature winner, the British playwright Harold pinter, turned his Nobel address into a blistering indictment of American foreign policy since the Second World War. A co-winner of the peace prize that year, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made no secret of his opposition to the American invasion of Iraq and has angered the Bush administration by his measured methods for trying to rein in nuclear proliferation, particularly in Iran.

In its citation on Friday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said the United Nations panel and Mr. Gore had focused "on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby reduce the future threat to the security of mankind."

It concluded, "Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control."

Walter Gibbs reported from Oslo, and Sarah Lyall from London. Reporting was contributed by Jesse McKinley from Palo Alto, Calif., Somini Sengupta from New Delhi, Mark Landler from Frankfurt, David Rampe from Paris, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.

New York times report on the climate change

2008-07-30T01:42:00.000-07:00

June 23, 2008
1988-2008: Climate Then and Now

By

Andrew c. Revkin
Global warming has felt like breaking news a few times in recent years. But the first big pulse of coverage and public attention came in 1988, when the Amazon Rainforest and Yellowstone were ablaze, a searing drought had farmers kicking dusty fields in frustration, and global temperatures had seen enough of a rise that a NASA climate expert, James Hansen, asserted before a Senate panel that statistics showed "the greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now."
I thought it might be worth inviting you all to read and "annotate" (as we’ve done with a couple of climate speeches and polar bear decision recently) my cover story for Discover Magazine, reported through that hot year and published in the October 1988 edition. I asked the current management there if they’d post the original article. They liked the idea, but the article was so old that it wasn’t

even available in electronic form, so they had to type it up. Here’s the story, Melissa Lafsky of the magazine also did a brief e-mail interview with me, which is on their Reality base blog.

I’ll start by posting some relevant sections below and offering some reflections on how the story has stood the test of time. I’d enjoy seeing your reactions, pro or con.

I was not at the Senate Energy Committee hearing when Dr. Hansen testified. But I had been focused on climate and humans since 1984, when I began reporting what would end up being a long cover story for Science Digest magazine assessing nuclear winter, kind of the inverse potential human impact on climate (global cooling from a pall of smoke rising from incinerated cities). I went to Toronto one week after Dr. Hansen’s testimony to report from the first international "Conference on changing Atmosphere" — one of the seminal meetings building momentum toward the first report of the newborn InterGovernmental panel on climate change.

Nuclear winter, as I wrote in 1985, was more nuanced than the initial dramatic concept, morphing from a Page One post-apocalyptic apocalypse into a more subtle phenomenon, labeled "nuclear autumn" by Stephen H. Schneider. What is distinct about global warming is that the basics of 100-year-old theory have stood the test of time (more CO2 = warming world = less ice + higher seas and lots of climate change). Let’s dive into my old story to see what has, and has not, changed.
After an opening section leading off with Dr. Hansen’s testimony:

Until this year, despite dire warnings from climatologists, the greenhouse effect has seemed somehow academic and far off. The idea behind it is simple: gases accumulating in the atmosphere as by-products of human industry and agriculture — carbon dioxide, mostly, but also methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbon — let in the sun’s warming rays but don’t let excess heat escape. As a result, mean global temperature has probably been rising for decades. But the rise has been so gradual that it has been masked by the much greater, and ordinary, year-to-year swings in world temperature.
In my
YouTube interview with Dr. Hansen, he discusses how the public remains attuned mainly to anomalies on short time scales — cold or warm — and misses the point that it is the long-term trend that he and other experts say will transform the planet, but at a pace invisible day to day.
Not anymore, said Hansen. The 1980s have already seen the four hottest years on record, and 1988 is almost certain to be hotter still. Moreover, the seasonal, regional, and atmospheric patterns of rising temperatures — greater warming in winters than summers, greater warming at high latitudes than near the equator, and a cooling in the stratosphere while the lower atmosphere is warmer — jibe with what computer models predict should happen with greenhouse heating. And the warming comes at a time when, by rights, Earth should actually be cooler than normal. The sun’s radiance has dropped slightly since the 1970s, and dust thrown up by recent volcanic eruptions, especially that of Mexico’s El Chichon in 1982, should be keeping some sunlight from reaching the planet.
What’s important here, and remains important, scientists say, is how the patterns of atmospheric and climatic change reveal the most about the involvement of greenhouse gases, not simply the change in global temperature.

Even though most climatologists think Hansen’s claims are premature, they agree that warming is on the way. Carbon dioxide levels are 25 percent higher now than they were in 1860, and the atmosphere’s burden of greenhouse gases is expected to keep growing. By the middle of the next century the resulting warming could boost global mean temperatures from three to nine degrees Fahrenheit. That doesn’t sound like much, but it equals the temperature rise since the end of the last ice age, and the consequences could be devastating. Weather patterns could shift, bringing drought to once fertile areas and heavy rains to fragile deserts that cannot handle them. As runoff from melting glaciers increases and warming seawater expands, sea level could rise as much as six feet, inundating low-lying coastal areas and islands. There would be dramatic disruptions of agriculture, water resources, fisheries, coastal activity, and energy use.

The range of possible warming from a particular rise in greenhouse gas concentrations is only a little narrower than it was back then. Again, this remains a risk-management challenge. As Dr. Hansen says in the video interview, climate is not something that we will "fix."

"Average climate will certainly get warmer," says Roger Revelle, an oceanographer and climatologist at the University of California at San Diego. "But what’s more serious is how many more hurricanes we’ll have, how many more droughts we’ll have, how many days above one hundred degrees." By Hansen’s reckoning, where Washington now averages one day a year over 100 degrees, it will average 12 such scorchers annually by the middle of the next century.
At the time, the basic notion that warmer seawater would fuel hurricanes was young and untested. Most scientists projecting many more, and stronger storms, including Kerry Emanuel (quoted farther down in my 1988 story), have since shifted to more nuanced projections. Enough time has passed that Dr. Emanuel and some other researchers say intensification has already been seen. But the hurricane-climate connection remains an idea its formative stages.

Comparable climate shifts have happened before, but over tens of centuries, not tens of years. The unprecedented rapid change could accelerate the already high rate of species extinction as plants and animals fail to adapt quickly enough. For the first time in history humans are affecting the ecological balance of not just a region but the entire world, all at once. "We’re altering the environment far faster than we can possibly predict the consequences," says Stephen Schneider, a climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "This is bound to lead to some surprises."

The situation then remains similar today in that the worst-case outcomes from a greenhouse-warmed world are clearly possible, but with the probability hard to nail down. This is one reason the policy debate, essentially over how much to invest in a climate insurance policy, remains turbulent.
A few themes that are central to climate discussions now were not part of the global warming story in 1988 — most notably the concept of thresholds and nonlinear "tipping points." The evidence that climate can shift abruptly had not yet emerged from ice cores in Greenland. All the curves looking forward were smooth.
The rising role of developing countries was also described in the story, along with the looming challenge posed by the rise of China as an economic, and climatic, force:

In the end, the greatest obstacle facing those who are trying to slow the output of greenhouse gases is the fundamental and pervasive nature of the human activities that are causing the problem: deforestation, industrialization, energy production. As populations boom, productivity must keep up. And even as the developed nations of the world cut back on fossil fuel use, there will be no justifiable way to prevent the Third World from expanding its use of coal and oil. How can the developed countries expect that China, for example, which has plans to double its coal production in the next 15 years in order to spur development, will be willing or even able to change course?
Overall, the story captured the same situation that scientists are still trying to describe now: a world poised for momentous changes that would be hard to reverse; the need for adaptation to inevitable changes and changes in energy choices to cut the chances of utter calamity; and the need to act in the face of uncertainty.

The piece culminated with a quote from Michael McElroy, a climate expert at Harvard, speaking at the Toronto climate conference. It could still be delivered today.
Michael McElroy concluded, "If we choose to take on this challenge, it appears that we can slow the rate of change substantially, giving us time to develop mechanisms so that the cost to society and the damage to ecosystems can be minimized. We could alternatively close our eyes, hope for the best, and pay the cost when the bill comes due."

Again, I’d love to hear your thoughts on particular sections of the story. Point them out in your comment and I’ll post the relevant paragraph and link to your contribution.

UNEP`S research on climate change

2008-07-29T19:35:00.000-07:00

Warmer World May Mean Less Fish

Global Warming Adding to Pollution and Over-Harvesting Impacts on the World's Key Fishing Grounds Says New UNEP - "In Dead Water" - Report

Monaco/Nairobi, 22 February 2008 -

Climate change is emerging as the latest threat to the world's dwindling fish stocks a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests.
At least three quarters of the globe's key fishing grounds may become seriously impacted by changes in circulation as a result of the ocean's natural pumping systems fading and falling they suggest.

These natural pumps, dotted at sites across the world including the Arctic and the Mediterranean, bring nutrients to fisheries and keep them healthy by flushing out wastes and pollution.
The impacts of rising emissions on the marine world are unlikely to end there. Higher sea surface temperatures over the coming decades threaten to bleach and kill up to 80 per cent of the globe's coral reefs-major tourist attractions, natural sea defences and also nurseries for fish.

Meanwhile there is growing concern that carbon dioxide emissions will increase the acidity of seas and oceans. This in turn may impact calcium and shell-forming marine life including corals but also tiny ones such as planktonic organisms at the base of the food chain.

The findings come in a new rapid response report entitled "In Dead Water" which has for the first time mapped the multiple impacts of pollution; alien infestations; over-exploitation and climate change on the seas and oceans.
"The worst concentration of cumulative impacts of climate change with existing pressures of over-harvest, bottom trawling, invasive species infestations, coastal development and pollution appear to be concentrated in 10-15 per cent of the oceans," says the report.

This 10-15 per cent of the oceans is far higher than had previously been supposed and is "concurrent with today's most important fishing grounds" including the estimated 7.5 per cent deemed to be the most economically valuable fishing areas of the world, it adds.

The report, the work of UNEP scientists in collaboration with universities and institutes in Europe and the United States, was launched today during UNEP's Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum taking place in Monaco.

It is the largest gathering of environment ministers since the climate convention conference in Indonesia just over two months ago where governments agreed the Bali Road Map aimed at delivering a deep and decisive climate regime for post 2012.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:" The theme of the Governing Council is 'Mobilizing Finance for the Climate Challenge for trillions of dollars can flow into climate-friendly energies and technologies if government's can provide the right kind of enabling market mechanisms and fiscal incentives".

"It is sometimes important to remind ourselves why we need to accelerate these transformations towards a Green Economy. In Dead Water has uniquely mapped the impact of several damaging and persistent stresses on fisheries. It also lays on top of these the likely impacts of climate change from dramatic alternations in ocean circulation affecting perhaps a three quarter of key fishing grounds up to the emerging concern of ocean acidification," said Mr Steiner.

"Climate change threatens coastal infrastructure, food and water supplies and the health of people across the world. It is clear from this report and others that it will add significantly to pressures on fish stocks. This is as much a development and economic issue as it is an environmental one. Millions of people including many in developing countries derive their livelihoods from fishing while around 2.6 billion people get their protein from seafood," he said.

The report comes in wake of findings issued last week by a team led by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis which estimates that over 40 per cent of the world's oceans have been heavily impacted by humans and that only four per cent remain relatively pristine.
It also comes amid concern that sea bird chicks in the North Sea may be being choked after being fed on a diet of snake pipefish-a very bony species. Over the past five years snake pipefish numbers have boomed a meeting of the Zoological Society in London was told last week.
One reason for their sharp increase in numbers might be changes in ocean currents bringing the fish into North Sea waters, the experts suggest.

The new UNEP report has been compiled by researchers including ones at UNEP's GRID Arendal centre; UNEP's World Conservation Monitoring Centre and UNEP's Division of Early Warning and Assessment.
It draws on a wide range of new and emerging science including the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-the 2,000 plus panel of scientists established by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation.

Other contributions have come from organizations and institutions including the University of Plymouth; the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research; the University of British Columbia; the Institute of Zoology; Princeton University; the University of Barcelona and the Sustainable Europe.

Live Earth Concerts

2008-07-27T19:07:00.000-07:00

CONCERT FOR A CLIMATE IN CRISIS

"Live Earth is a 24-hour, 7-continent concert series taking place on 7/7/07 that will bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis.
Live Earth will reach this worldwide audience through an unprecedented global media architecture covering all media platforms - TV, radio, Internet and wireless channels.
Live Earth marks the beginning of a multi-year campaign led by the Alliance for Climate Protection, The Climate Group and other international organizations to drive individuals, corporations and governments to take action to solve global warming. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is the Chair of the Alliance and Partner of Live Earth.
Live Earth was founded by Kevin Wall, the Worldwide Executive Producer of Live 8, an event that brought together one of the largest audiences in history to combat poverty. Wall formed a partnership with Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection to ensure that Live Earth inspires behavioral changes long after 7/7/07.Live Earth will stage official concerts at Giants Stadium in New York; Wembley Stadium in London; Aussie Stadium in Sydney; Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro; Maropeng at the Cradle of Humankind in Johannesburg; Makuhari Messe in Tokyo; the Steps of the Oriental Pearl Tower in Shanghai; and HSH Nordbank Arena in Hamburg.

Performers at the London concert include Madonna, Beastie Boys, Keane, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Razorlight, Duran Duran, Black Eyed Peas, Genesis, Bloc Party, Corinne Bailey Rae, David Gray, Foo Fighters, James Blunt, John Legend, Paolo Nutini, Pussycat Dolls and Metallica.
Its not everyday that 2 billion people rally around a single cause for the betterment of the whole of mankind.
I, myself will attend Live Earth, in London, not only to see some of the Earth’s best musical talent (as well as some not so talented), but also to view this ‘Unity in the World’s Undertakings,’ first hand.
Having some of biggest names in the music industry , as well as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, behind an initiative fighting for a noble cause is a great example co-operation and unity of thought in the world undertakings. The question is, how sustainable is this endeavor? What is the real solution behind climate change?

This question was asked at a conference on Climate Change, at Oxford University,England in October 2006.
The event was was organised by the Baha’i Agency for Social and Economic Development (BASED-UK) and the International Environment Forum (IEF), a Baha’i-inspired organization.
One of the conclusions of the conference was that the challenges posed by global warming will require a far higher level of collective action and international cooperation than is currently practiced.

Below is an excerpt from a Baha’i World News Story reporting on the conference:
Climate change is "testing mankind’s ability to deal with a collective challenge," said Halldor Thorgeirsson, deputy executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC). "The solution itself will fundamentally change how governments cooperate."
In an address titled "The international community’s response to climate change," Dr. Thorgeirsson said the role of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in global warming is now well established scientifically and "sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
"When it comes to climate change it will not be solved by any one actor on its own," said Dr. Thorgeirsson.
IEF President Arthur Dahl said the purpose of the conference was "to unify these perspectives, relate them to each other" and to "engage the Baha’i community in the process of applying spiritual principles to the practical problems of the world."
Dr. Dahl, a former deputy assistant executive director of the United Nation Environment Program, delivered the keynote presentation on "scientific and faith perspectives" on climate change, saying that most scientists have now concluded that there will be significant warming in the coming years.
"Climate change is going to force humanity to recognize its oneness," said Dr. Dahl. "Whole ecosystems will shift over long distances, if they can move fast enough."
"We are looking at a scale of change this planet has not seen before," said Dr. Dahl. "Sea level has been going up and the scenarios show the trend to continue. It will bring other impacts: food insecurity, water shortages."
Such changes, said Dr. Dahl, will require more than technical solutions. Rather, he said, they will require the application of ethical and spiritual principles so as to create "new value-based economic models" that seek to create a "dynamic, just and thriving social order."
Religion, said Dr. Dahl, can play a key role in strengthening the ethical framework for action on climate change by educating people "about values and global responsibility," creating "motivation for change," and encouraging the sacrifices that will be needed to create sustainable development.

Global warming benefits

2008-07-27T18:42:00.000-07:00

Global Warming Benefits

WARMER WINTERS ARE HEALTHIER:

From a purely evolutionary point of view, warm periods have always benefited plants and animals. The world has thrived during the warming periods between the ice ages. Cold periods have always caused serious survival problems for all organisms including mankind. Scientific studies show that there will be 40,000 fewer deaths each year in the U.S. In Britain alone, scientists estimate that about 30,000 deaths a year are related to cold winter weather. Warmer temperatures in the U.S. will reduce medical costs by about $20 billion every year.

WARMER WEATHER WILL OPEN THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE:

As rising temperatures melt glaciers in the Arctic and particularly in Alaska, a new, faster trade route will soon open up. The Bering Strait, a legendarily difficult passage for ships, could become an oceanic super-highway between the hemispheres as ice sheets disappear. The seldom-used strait is set to become the Panama Canal of the north, cutting down travel time between Europe, America and Asia by as much as one-third. Experts predict the Northwest Passage will be open for year-round travel within a decade. This would be of particular importance for supertankers which are too big to fit through the Panama Canal and currently are forced to go around the tip of South America. This reduction of sea lane ice in the Arctic will be a dramatic boon to the shipping industry carrying cargo between the continents.

WARMER WEATHER MEANS MORE CROPS:

Satellite measurements now show that our planet has become greener than it was prior to the onset of global warming. The rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere dramatically increases overall global food production. The presence of carbon dioxide has a fertilizing effect on the growth of plant life. The warmer weather means a longer growing season, and thus greater output. This, combined with fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, will greatly benefit all of the agricultural economic sectors, plus the positive impacts on forestry and recreation. In addition to the dramatic increase of actual land available for cultivation, natural resources would be much easier to extract. The overall economic impact of global warming on the U.S. economy will actually be positive, creating a measurable increase in Gross Domestic Product.

WARMER WEATHER MEANS MORE USABLE LAND:

As the ice retreats to the poles, more arable land will become available for both residential and agricultural purposes. Large land-masses in the northern hemisphere, just south of the Canadian/U.S. border, have some very extreme climates that can be quite inhospitable for human habitation. Most Canadians live in a belt running along its southern border with the United States. But once global warming is factored in, vast northern regions will become arable and comfortably habitable. All of Canada will welcome an agricultural boon field with long growing seasons. Heretofore uninhabitable land will not only become inhabitable, but even temperate.
The process of converting northern US and Canadian forests and grasses to cropland will have a positive cooling effect, because agricultural crops reflect more sunlight and release more moisture into the air. This expanded agriculture will counteract global warming by as much as fifty-percent across parts of North America, Canada, Europe, and Asia. The old boreal forests of both Canada and Russia add to global warming since these pine and waxy leafed trees are darker, thereby absorbing more heat, and, because of their leaf structure, do not evaporate cooling water into the surrounding air. The replacement of boreal forests with more tropical trees will dramatically aid in balancing and diminishing the negative affects of global warming.

WARMER WINTERS ARE SAFER:

With most streets free from ice and snow, driving will be a lot safer; No need to shovel snow reducing the stress induced heart attacks; Heating bills will be drastically lower; No need to waste money on all of that cold weather gear. Rail, road and air transportation would be positively impacted by a general warming since weather-related delays and accidents would be greatly reduced. Department of Energy studies show that consumer energy bills would be reduced by over $12 billion each year.
Global warming will have no real effect, positive or negative, on economic activities such as manufacturing, retailing, wholesaling, banking, education and the majority of other businesses that are unrelated to cold weather. Of course cold weather activities, such as snow-sports, would be negatively affected.

10 Best ways to reduce global warming

2008-07-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

Burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil and gasoline raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the green house effect and global warming.

You can help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which in turn reduces global warming, by using energy more wisely. Here are 10 simple actions you can take to help reduce global warming.

1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper,plastic, newspaper, glass and aluminum cans. If there isn't a recycling programme at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.

2. Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
Adding insulation to your walls and attic, and installing weather stripping or caulking around doors and windows can lower your heating costs more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.
Turn down the heat while you’re sleeping at night or away during the day, and keep temperatures moderate at all times. Setting your thermostat just 2 degrees lower in winter and higher in summer could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.

3. change a light bulb
Wherever practical, replace regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Replacing just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL will save you $30 over the life of the bulb. CFLs also last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, use two-thirds less energy, and give off 70 percent less heat.
If every U.S. family replaced one regular light bulb with a CFL, it would eliminate 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road.

4. Drive less Drive smart
Less driving means fewer emissions. Besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community’s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.
When you do drive, make sure your car is running efficiently. For example, keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Every gallon of gas you save not only helps your budget, it also keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

5. Buy Energy-Efficient Products
When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that offers good gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.
Avoid products that come with excess packaging, especially molded plastic and other packaging that can't be recycled. If you reduce your household garbage by 10 percent, you can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.

6. Use Less Hot Water
Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save hot water and about 350 pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. That change alone can save at least 500 pounds of carbon dioxide annually in most households. Use the energy-saving settings on your diswasher and let the dishes air-dry.

7. Use the "Off" Switch
Save electricity and reduce global warming by turning off lights when you leave a room, and using only as much light as you need. And remember to turn off your television, video player, stereo and computer when you're not using them.
It's also a good idea to turn off the water when you're not using it. While brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog or washing your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You'll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital resource.

8. Plant a tree
If you have the means to plant a tree, start digging. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. They are an integral part of the natural atmospheric exchange cycle here on Earth, but there are too few of them to fully counter the increases in carbon dioxide caused by automobile traffic, manufacturing and other human activities. A single tree will absorb approximately one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.

9. Get a report card from your utility companies
Many utility companies provide free home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.

10. Encourage Others to Conserve
Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.
These 10 steps will take you a long way toward reducing your energy use and your monthly budget. And less energy use means less dependence on the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.

Global warming may increase kidney stones

2008-07-23T17:48:00.000-07:00

U.S. researchers predict global warming may increase kidney stone incidence

Among the many diseases predicted to come with climate change, a team of U.S. researchers say kidney stones may become more common as the temperature rises across North America. Researchers from University of Texas examined how the incidence of kidney stones would change with increasing temperatures and suggest kidney stones may increase across the United States by as much as 30 percent in the most affected areas.

In addition, they calculate the direct and indirect costs of treating approximately 2 million new kidney stone cases annually could increase by 1 billion U.S. dollars by 2050, which is 25 percent more than the current expenditures.Previous research has found the risk of kidney stone formation is increased by low urine volume, which reflects the state of body hydration.

While the response of kidney stone formation to temperature increase is uncertain, the authors note kidney stone incidence is higher in warmer parts of the country, especially the southeast, presumably due to fluid loss in warm climate.
They caution if the risk increases directly with temperature, high-population coastal regions could see the largest increases.

If the risk suddenly climbs steeply at some threshold temperature, a band stretching from Kentucky to northern California would likely see the most new cases.

2008-07-22T18:15:00.000-07:00

The higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg. Submarine use this principle to rise and sink in the water by changing their weight.

But the rising temperature and icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers, causing more cracks and making ice more likely to break off. As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

If the rising temperature affects glaciers and icebergs, could the polar ice caps be in danger of melting and causing the oceans to rise? This could happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The main ice covered landmass is Antartica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.)

FACTS ON POLAR ICE CAPS

2008-07-21T01:43:00.000-07:00

1.Polar ice cap
(Reference:-Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia.)

A polar ice cap is a high-latitude region of a planet or moon that is covered in ice. There are no requirements with respect to size or composition for a body of ice to be termed a polar ice cap, nor any geological requirement for it to be over land; only that it must be a body of solid phase matter in the polar region. This causes the term 'polar ice cap' to be somewhat of a misnomer, as the term ice cap itself is applied with greater scrutiny as such bodies must be found over land, and possess a surface area of less than 50,000 km²: larger bodies are referred to as ice sheets.

The composition of the ice will vary. For example Earth's polar ice caps are mainly water ice, while Mars's polar ice caps are a mixture of solid phase carbon dioxide and water ice.

Polar ice caps form because high-latitude regions receive less energy in the form of solar radiation from the sun than equatorial regions, resulting in lower surface temperatures.

The polar ice caps have changed dramatically over the last 20 years. According to prevalent scientific theory, this change can be attributed to global warming resulting from climate change caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels. Seasonal variations of the ice caps takes place due to varied solar energy absorption as the planet or moon revolves around the sun. Additionally, in geologic time scales, the ice caps may grow or shrink due to climate variation. See ice age, polar climate.

2.Impacts of global warming on polar ice caps
This is a very important statement to think about how Global warming may have significant impacts on our environment over the next century. Many say that it is currently responsible for changes in weather and climate patterns already. The short-term variability of the weather makes it very hard to base decisions on only a few years’ observations, but the long-term trends (measurements over a hundred years) do indicate that we are on a warming trend.

EARTH POLAR ICE CAPS
North pole
Earth's north pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic ice pack. Portions of the ice that don't melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about a meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km². In addition, the Greenland ice sheet covers about 1.71 million km² and contains about 2.6 million km³ of ice.

While the International Panel on Climate Change 2001 report predicted that the North polar ice cap would last to 2100 in spite of global warming caused by climate change, the dramatic reduction in the size of the ice cap during the northern summer of 2007 has led some scientists to estimate that there will be no ice at the North Pole by 2030 with devastating effects on the environment.

Other scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, estimate that there will be no summer ice by as soon as 2013. He argues that this projection is already too conservative as his dataset did not include the minima of 2005 and 2007.

Due to the Global warming(climate change)northern polar ice cap is being melted far beyond than the south pole.Melting of north polar ice cap is so rapid.

South pole
The land mass of the Earth's south pole, in Antarctica, is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. It covers an area of almost 14 million km² and contains 25-30 million km³ of ice. Around 70% of the fresh water on the Earth is held in this ice sheet. In addition, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet covers 3.2 million km² and the Ross Ice Shelf covers 0.5 million km². See Climate of Antarctica.

Global warming has increased the volume of summer meltwater on glaciers, which has weakened ice shelves. The dramatic collapses of The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Wordie, Muller, and the Jones Ice Shelf show the impacts of climate change on the Antarctic ice cap.

EFFECT OF POLAR ICE CAP MELTATION ON RISE OF OCEAN
You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years.

MARS POLAR ICE CAP

The planet Mars also has polar ice caps, but they consist of frozen
carbon dioxide as well as water. The ice caps change with the Martian seasons-the carbon dioxide ice sublimes in summer, uncovering a surface of layered rocks, and then reforms in winter. These polar ice caps are one of the main reasons that people believe that life exists on Mars.

Global warming on Mars?
In the other study, led by Michael C. Malin, features at the south pole were observed to retreat by up to 10 feet (3 meters) from one Martian year to the next.

The odd shapes -- circular pits, ridges and mounds -- were first photographed in 1999. Since then, the features have eroded away by up to 50 percent.
The pits are growing, the ridges between them shrinking.
Caplinger and Malin caution that a year's worth of data does not reveal when this erosion began or how long it will continue. Yet they speculate that the features could have been created in a Mars' decade and may erode away completely within one to two decades.
"We know that the pits we see at the surface today are not very old, and that they will not last very long," Malin said.

Water or not on mars?

The rate of erosion suggests the features are made of moderately dense but solid carbon dioxide, rather than water ice, the scientists conclude. But that does not preclude the possibility of water ice at the south pole.
"We don't know what's underneath," Caplinger said. "You could certainly have water ice under carbon dioxide."
He said the only way to find out is to go there and drill down.
The newly observed melting, if it is part of a trend, could pump enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mars to increase its mass by 1 percent per decade, the scientists said. Already, the atmosphere of Mars is roughly 95 percent carbon dioxide.
Caplinger said no one knows for sure what effect the extra carbon dioxide might have on the climate. "Not much," he figures.
But he said many scientists assume that Mars undergoes climate change. Photos of the surface suggest water may once have flowed on Mars, implying that it would have been warmer. And Earth's ice ages offer the lesson that change is inherent in a climate

2008-07-12T23:15:00.000-07:00

Melting Ice Threatens Polar Bears Survival

The Department of Interior’s imminent decision on whether to place polar bears on the federally protected endangered species list has focused attention on a recent study that documents for the first time the way that Arctic sea ice affects the bears' survival, breeding, and population growth. If current ice melting trends continue, the bears are likely to become extinct in the southern Beaufort Sea region of Alaska and adjacent Canada, the study concludes.

Using extensive data of polar bears collected by U.S. Geological Survey scientists from 2001 to 2005, a research team including Hal Caswell of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and Christine Hunter of the University of Alaska determined that climate change in the Arctic is dramatically reducing polar bears’ survival and reproductive rates.

The study concluded that melting Arctic ice is a critical threat to the bears’ survival. Polar bears need ice as a platform to hunt for their main food source: seals. As the Arctic Ocean became more ice-free over more summer days in 2004 and 2005, polar bear breeding and survival declined below the point needed to maintain the population, the team found.

The population can withstand occasional "bad-ice years," but not a steady diet of them. Some climate studies project that summer Arctic ice may disappear by mid-century. If it does, the polar bear will follow soon after, the scientists say, with two-thirds of polar bears disappearing throughout their entire range.

The Endangered Species Act process
Interior officials were scheduled to make their decision on polar bears on Jan. 9, but postponed it for a month, citing the complexity of the situation. The long legal process to be considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act began in 2005, when the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

The FWS began an initial review of the petition in February 2006 and received more than 500,000 public comments—both supporting and opposing. On Jan. 9, 2007, the FWS formally proposed listing the polar bear as "threatened." In the language of the Endangered Species Act, a species is "endangered" if it is in danger of extinction in at least a significant portion of its range. It is "threatened" if it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The FWS would take steps to protect the species in either case, but a threatened listing is more flexible and lets the government make "special rules tailored to the species’ needs." The proposed listing triggered another yearlong process, and FWS turned to its research arm, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for further information.

The USGS had recently completed a painstaking study of one of the 19 polar bear populations in the Arctic—the one living in the Southern Beaufort Sea, off the coast of northern Alaska and adjacent Canada. From 2001 to 2005, USGS researchers searched for bears, tranquilized, measured, and tagged them, gave them lip tattoos to identify them, removed a tooth to measure the bears’ ages, and then released and tracked the bears in a "mark-recapture" study.

In March 2007, the USGS enlisted Caswell and Hunter, mathematical ecologists who specialize in population dynamics models, to advise the team. They used new analytical methods, developed while Hunter was a postdoctoral investigator at WHOI, to develop new models that incorporated USGS-collected information about polar bears’ mortality rates, birth rates, life cycles, and habitats. They coupled these models to projections of Arctic climate changes, especially forecasts of sea ice conditions. They calculated the interplay of all these factors—"some 10,000 simulations," Caswell said—to estimate the probabilities of future polar bear population growth or decline.

"Ice, it turns out, is a critical component of the polar bears’ environment," Caswell said, "and for the first time we were able to link it directly to population growth."

Ice and ice bears
Like other predators at the top of the food chain, polar bears have a low reproductive rate. One or two cubs are born in midwinter and stay with their mother for two years. Consequently, females breed only every three years. The bears don’t reproduce until they are five or six years old.

From late fall until spring, mothers with new cubs den in snowdrifts on land or on pack ice. They emerge from their dens, with the new cubs, in the spring to hunt seals from floating sea ice. (In many languages, they are more fittingly called ice bears. They are unipolar, inhabiting only the Arctic, an ice-covered ocean, not the ice-covered continent of Antarctica.) Simply put, if there isn’t enough sea ice, seals can’t haul out on the ice, and polar bears can’t continue to hunt.

In each of the first three years of the USGS surveys, the near-shore ice melted an average of about 100 days, and the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population grew about 5 percent per year. But in 2004 and 2005, the number of "ice-free" days increased to about 135, and the population declined by about 25 percent per year. During the same period, polar bear researchers in the Arctic reported seeing things they had never seen before: emaciated bears, starving bears, bears drowning, and bear cannibalism.

The population models created in the study suggested that 130 "ice-free" days is a threshold, constituting a "bad-ice" year that has negative impacts on the polar bear population. The frequency of "bad-ice" years is critical: If they occur too often (more often than once every six years or so), the bear population shrinks, the scientists said. All the climate models examined predict that bad ice years will occur more often in the future, as the Arctic warms. That projects a dire future for polar bears, though some small populations might hang on in isolated regions where ice remains, Caswell said.

Caswell and Hunter, along with USGS polar bear biologists Erich Regher and Steven Amstrup; Michael Runge from the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland; and Ian Sterling from the Canadian Wildlife Service, issued two reports on the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears, in September 2007. They were among nine reports presented to the FWS and USGS administrations and to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

"These are very discouraging reports," Caswell said. "You could see the expressions on the faces of the audience change as the presentation went on and they became aware of the severity of the situation."

Controversy, for and against
Following the release of the reports, another public comment period elicited tens of thousands of responses. Supporters of adding polar bears to the list of threatened species included the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, and 51 members of Congress. Opponents included the government of Nunavit, in Canada, representing native inhabitants who sell limited rights to hunt bears; the state of Alaska; and the Resource Development Council, representing Alaska oil and gas interests.

Many of the opponents invoked uncertainty as their main criticism. The Resource Development Council claimed that "all major studies by the USGS are filled with uncertainty and doubt." And in an op-ed piece Jan. 5 in The New York Times, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska said, "There is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future, " adding that "the possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects" [of climate change].

However, Caswell points out that this is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific results. "Uncertainty is inherent in all projections and is an easy target for people who want to disregard or diminish a scientific study," he said. "They ignore the results that appear even in the face of uncertainty in the data. In the case of the polar bear, the conclusions about population decline and the effects of sea ice changes on that decline are robust—in spite of the uncertainty. "

No easy fix
On the day the FWS postponed its decision for a month, the CBD, NRDC, and Greenpeace jointly announced their intent to sue the government to force the ruling. If Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne decides to designate polar bears as threatened, critical habitat areas could be designated in the future, and federal and state agencies would be prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats of the species—which could include permitting of mining and drilling operations.

American hunters would no longer be able to bring into the U.S. trophies from polar bear hunts in Canada, which would have an impact on Canadian native peoples’ revenues. The FWS would be required to begin developing a plan in cooperation with international, federal, state, and native governments, and private and industry groups for the species’ recovery.

If climate change and melting Arctic sea ice are the cause of polar bears’ decline, reversing it may be enormously difficult. In this, the bears’ situation contrasts with another endangered species, whose demography Caswell has also analyzed: the North Atlantic right whale.

"At least there are obvious ways to help the whale," Caswell said. "We know that ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements kill them, and we can try to mitigate those factors, even if it is difficult. In the case of the polar bear, there may not be an easy way to fix it. But it is important to note that the Endangered Species Act responds to the risk of extinction facing a species, regardless of the causes of that risk or of whether it will be easy or difficult to reduce the risk."

2008-07-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

Threats To Polar Bears Survival

Polar bears, top predators in their arctic habitat, face growing threats to their survival.

Global Warming

Polar bears are highly adapted to their Arctic habitat. Recent declines in their numbers can be linked to the melting of sea ice and its formation later in the year. The Artic Climate Impact Assessment reported in 2004 that the covering of summer ice in the Arctic shrunk by 15 to 20 percent in the past 30 years, and the decline was expected to accelerate. Further predicted reductions of 10 to 50 percent of annual sea ice and 50 to 100 percent of summer sea ice in the next 50 to 100 years present a considerable threat. Ice is breaking up earlier in some areas and is predicted to do so in other areas, forcing bears ashore before they build up sufficient fat stores or forcing them to swim longer distances, which may exhaust them, leading to drowning. Not only is the Arctic warming forcing the bears to feed for a shorter time, but it is also decreasing their prey base. The consequences are thinner, stressed bears, decreased female reproductive rates, and lower juvenile survival rates.

Although a broad consensus has emerged that human activities are contributing to global warming, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase in the United States and abroad. The United States has refused to sign the kyoto protocal, an international agreement intended to decrease the human production of greenhouse gases. Without the participation of the United States, the protocol is unlikely to meet its 2012 goal of reduced emissions of 5 percent of 1990 values in developed countries. Even if this goal is met, it is not stringent enough to preserve the polar bears' habitat.

Environmental Contaminant

The Arctic is considered a "sink" for environmental contaminants. Mercury, organochlorines such as PCBs and DDT, and other toxins are carried northward in rivers, ocean currents, and the wind. These toxins accumulate at higher levels along the food chain. Researchers have found extremely high amounts of chemical pollutants in polar bears, the top Arctic predator, putting the bears in danger of bone mineral density loss, hormonal imbalance, physiological damage, and compromised immune systems. Bone mineral density loss is especially devastating in female polar bears, which must mobilize large amounts of calcium and phosphate during pregnancy and nursing. As an additional blow, the harmful effects of pollutants can interact negatively with the nutritional stress caused by global warming.

Development

Melting sea ice has resulted in the opening of the Arctic to tourism and mineral and energy development. As more people visit the Arctic, noise pollution and interactions with polar bears increase. Polar bears are harassed by photographers and tourists wanting to come closer. Yet when the bears are attracted to human camps by the smell of food, they may be perceived as a threat and killed.Oil and gas exploration is a growing threat to polar bears as well. Companies are eager to exploit the mineral reserves in the Arctic, but it comes at a great cost to the environment.

Hunting

Because of their long lives and slow reproduction, polar bears rely on high adult survival rates to maintain their numbers. Over-hunting of adults can cause a catastrophic crash in population. Half of the 20 recognized populations of polar bears are currently threatened by potential over-hunting. The remainder may be over-hunted in the near future if hunting quotas are not reduced. Subsistence hunting is permitted in Canada, Greenland and Alaska, and sport hunting is permitted in Canada and recently Greenland. The World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Species cites "a potential risk of over-harvest due to increased quotas, excessive quotas or no quotas in Canada and Greenland and poaching in Russia."

Although the United States prohibits non-subsistence hunting of polar bears under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and trophy hunting is arguably illegal under the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, U.S. hunters are permitted to import the trophies from sport hunted polar bears from six Canadian populations—Southern Beaufort Sea, Northern Beaufort Sea, Western Hudson Bay, Lancaster Sound, Viscount Melville Sound, and Norwegian Bay. Declining populations in some areas have spurred the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review the sustainability of hunting in these areas. Unfortunately, polar bears continue to be killed and imported into the United States while the Fish and Wildlife Service considers whether to lift its approvals for any of the six targeted populations.

Evolution

2008-07-07T18:29:00.000-07:00

Evolution

The polar bear appears to share a common ancestor with the presentday brown bear. It apparently branched off the brown bear lineage during the late Pleistocene. Kurt?en (1964) suggested that ancestors of the modern polar bear were "gigantic." Although still the largest of the extant bears, the polar bear, like many other mammals, has decreased in size since the Pleistocene. Also, significant morphological changes have continued within the last 20,000? to 40,000 years, perhaps through the present (Kurt?en 1964). Stanley (1979) described the many recently derived traits of polar bears as an example of "quantum speciation."

Evidence of polar bear evolution contained in the sparse samples of fossils has been strengthened recently by molecular genetics. Whereas traits of fossil teeth and bones from polar bears clearly indicate their brown bear origins, fossil remains include only a handful of specimens (Kurt?en 1964). Genetic data from extant bears can provide phylogenetic information unavailable in the fossil record. Shields and Kocher (1991) first analyzed mtDNA sequences and showed a close relationship between brown bears and polar bears. Cronin et al. (1991) then discovered that mtDNA of brown bears is paraphyletic with respect to polar bears. That is, the mtDNA of brown bears of the Alexander Archipelago in southeastern Alaska is more closely related to the mtDNA of polar bears than it is to the mtDNA of other brown bears. Cronin et al. (1991) reported that mtDNA sequence divergence between Alexander Archipelago brown bears and polar bears is only about 1%, whereas a divergence of about 2.6% separates polar bears from brown bears occurring elsewhere. Cronin et al. (1991) and Cronin (1993) emphasized that mtDNA sequence divergence trees are not species trees and that mtDNA is not, by itself, a good measure of overall genetic differentiation. Nonetheless, these relationships provide a compelling argument regarding the origin and evolution of polar bears.

Following the discovery of Cronin et al. (1991), others corroborated the finding of paraphyletic mtDNA in brown bears and polar bears. Talbot and Shields (1996a, 1996b) suggested that the Alexander Archipelago brown bears represent descendents of ancestral stock that gave rise to polar bears. This stock may have survived Pleistocene glaciers in an ice-free refugium in southeastern Alaska, isolated from brown bears in other Pleistocene refugia (Heaton et al. 1996). This island-dwelling ancestral stock apparently has remained isolated from the more recent mainland bears by broad ocean passages.

Talbot and Shields (1996b) found mtDNA sequence divergence rates similar to those reported by Cronin et al. (1991), and proposed that ancestors of the Alexander Archipelago brown bears diverged from the other mtDNA lineages of brown bears 550,000? to 700,000 years ago. The mtDNA sequence divergences also suggested that polar bears branched from the Alexander Archepelago ancestral stock of brown bears about 200,000 ?to 250,000 years ago, a date closely corresponding with that suggested in the fossil record (Thenius 1953; Kurt?en 1964). Shields and Kocher (1991) and Cronin et al. (1991) reported that the mtDNA nucleotide sequence divergence between brown and polar bears (grouped together) and black bears was 7?9%. Applying the substitution rate (6%/million years) for mtDNA genes reported by Talbot and Shields (1996a) to the sequence divergence reported by Cronin et al. (1991) suggests that brown bear ancestral stock diverged from that of black bears approximately 1.2 to ?1.5 million years ago. This "molecular clock" estimate may be low. The fossil record suggests black bears diverged from the brown bear lineage 1.5 to ?2.5 million years ago.

Cronin (1993) cautioned that mutation rates vary among genes as well as among taxa, and that conclusions based on "molecular clocks" must be viewed with caution and in the context of other evidence. For example, DNA sequences for two functional nuclear genes, ?-casein and the DQ? gene of the major histocompatability complex, show polyphyletic relationships among the three species of bears (M. Cronin and S. Amstrup, unpublished data). That is, the DNA sequences do not resolve the relationships among the species. These functional genes are presumably under strong selection and do not diverge as rapidly as mtDNA. Nonetheless, the mtDNA analyses indicate that Alexander Archipelogo brown bears derive from more ancient stocks and are more closely related to polar bears than are other members of the brown bear clan. These conclusions also corroborate the recent appearance of the polar bear in the fossil record and the more ancient roots of the black bear (Thenius 1953; Kurt?en 1964). All DNA evidence, regardless of some areas of uncertainty, corroborate conclusions from the fossil record that the polar bear is a recently derived species and is undergoing rapid evolution. The extreme arctic marine environment is undoubtedly exerting strong selection pressures for rapid adaptation.

2008-07-05T18:25:00.000-07:00

Birth and Care of Young.

A. Gestation.

1.The total gestation period is about eight months.

2.Gestation includes a period of delayed implantation.

a. The fertilized egg divides into a hollow ball of cells one layer thick (a blastocyst),then stops growing and lies free-floating in the uterus for about four months. The blastula then implants in the uterine wall and continues to develop.

b. Delayed implantation assures that the cub is born during the best time of the year for survival and allows the female to get into good physical condition and use her energy for nursing her newborn cubs.

c. The actual embryonic development is estimated to be four months.

B. Denning.
During their first few weeks of life, polar bear cubs nurse most of the time and stay close to their mother to keep warm.

D. Frequency of birth.

1.Most adult females give birth once every three years. In some populations, birth occurs once every two years.

2.The most frequent litter size is two, followed by litters of one. Litters of three are less common than twins or singles, and litters of four are rare.

E. Cubs at birth.

1.At birth, polar bear cubs weigh about 454 to 680 g (16-24 oz.) and are about 30 cm (12 in.) long. Males are born slightly larger than females.

2.Polar bear cubs are born small and helpless, with their eyes closed.

3.The fur is very fine at birth, making the cubs look hairless.

F. Care of young.

1.Nursing.

a. Female polar bears have four mammary glands. Mothers nurse their cubs in a sitting position, or lying down on their side or back.

b. During their first few weeks of life, polar bear cubs nurse most of the time and stay close to their mother to keep warm.

c. For the next three or four months the cubs nurse as often as six times a day. The length and number of nursings gradually decreases as the cubs grow older.

d. Mother polar bears nurse their cubs for as long as 30 months. Some cubs stop nursing as young as 18 months of age, but remain with their mothers for survival until they are 30 months old.

e. The average fat content of polar bear milk is 33%, similar to the milkfat of other marine mammals.

2.Mother polar bears are extremely protective of their young, even risking their own lives in their cubs' defense.

G. Cub growth and development.

1. Cubs open their eyes within the first month.

2. The cubs begin walking while in the den at about two months. By this time, they also have thick, whitish fur and their teeth have erupted.

3. By the time the mother and cubs emerge from the den in late March or April, the cubs weigh 10 to 15 kg (22-33 lb.).

4. Mother and cubs remain around the den for about 12 more days, sometimes longer.

a. This enables the cubs to acclimate to the colder weather and develop their walking muscles.

b. During this time the cubs still spend about 85% of their time in the den, sleeping there at night.

5. When ready, the mother polar bear leads her cubs to sea ice. Travel is slow with frequent rest and nursing stops. A mother will sometimes carry her cubs on her back through areas of deep snow or water.

6. Cubs begin eating solid food as soon as their mother makes her first kill on the sea ice (about three to four months of age).

7. The cubs grow quickly on their mother's fat rich milk and on seal blubber. By eight months of age, they weigh over 45 kg (99 lb.).

8. Polar bear cubs learn to hunt by watching their mother. Cubs will try hunting in their first year, but don't seem to be successful until they're over one year old. Even then, they only spend about 4% of their time hunting. By the time they're two years old they spend about 7% of their time hunting and can catch a seal every five or six days.

9. When her cubs are about 30 months old, a female polar bear is ready to breed again. At this time, an adult male may begin following her. Either the mother bear or the male chases away the cubs.

Communication

2008-07-05T18:13:00.000-07:00

Communication.

A. Vocalizations.
1.Adult polar bears vocalize most when they're agitated or threatened. Sounds include hissing, growling, champing of teeth, and soft chuffing.

2.Cubs vocalize more often and for diverse reasons. Sounds include hissing, squalling, whimpering, lip smacking, and throaty rumblings.

3.Mothers warn cubs with a chuffing or braying sound.

B. Other communication.
1.Polar bears also communicate through sight, touch, and smell.

2.A male polar bear initiates play fighting by approaching another male with its head down, mouth closed, and eyes averted. The bears usually make contact by gently touching or "mouthing" each other around the face and neck. They then proceed to rear up on their hind legs and try to push each other over with their forepaws.

3.A mother polar bear can comfort, protect, or punish her cubs by using her body, muzzle, or paws.

Behaviour

2008-07-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

BEHAVIOUR

A. Daily activity cycle.
1. Polar bears are most active the first third of the day and least active the final third of the day.

2. In the Canadian Arctic, adult female polar bears with cubs hunt about 19% of their time during the spring and about 38% of their time during the summer. Adult male polar bears hunt about 25% of their time during the spring and about 40% of their time during the summer.

3. When not hunting, polar bears are often sleeping or resting. Polar bears are basically solitary. However, in some southern regions, like Hudson Bay, bears may aggregate on land during the ice-free summer and autumn months.

4. Polar bear aggregations.
a. Polar bears will aggregate to feed on large whale carcasses and at dump sites.
b. In some southern regions, like Hudson Bay, bears aggregate on land during the ice-free summer and autumn months.

5. On occasion, adult and sub adult (ages 30 months to five or six years) polar bear males will feed and travel together for short periods of time.

6. The movements of polar bears can also be studied by following their tracks in the snow, usually by aircraft.

7. Other behaviors are recorded by observing polar bears directly, or finding evidence of polar bears, such as a partially eaten seal.

9. Most polar bear research is conducted in the spring or summer when weather conditions are more favorable to humans.

B. Attacks on humans.

1. Humans may encounter polar bears wherever human and polar bear habitats overlap. Polar bear attacks occur most often at sites of human habitation, such as hunting camps, weather stations, and towns. Compared to other bears, polar bears are more willing to consider humans as prey. Consequently, the person attacked is usually killed unless the polar bear is killed first.

2. Polar bear subadults and females with cubs attack most often. They're also the chief scavengers (among polar bears) of human dump sites. Both groups tend to be thinner and hungrier; subadults are inexperienced hunters, and females with cubs must feed themselves and their young.

Greenpeace pressures on China

2008-07-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

Greenpeace stepped up the pressure on China to do something about its surging greenhouse gas emissions, launching a campaign that warns melting glaciers could hurt Chinese agriculture and hydroelectric projects. The environmental group cited a Chinese Academy of Sciences' projection that 80 percent of the glaciers in Tibet and the surrounding region could melt by 2035, though other research suggests more moderate melting.

China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's leading of greenhouse gases this year or next. To date it has fiercely rejected taking action on climate, arguing that it is the responsibility of industrialized countries to address the issue. Before the May 3 release of the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) China worked to insert language that would reduce the report's urgency.

Nevertheless, climate change is expected to have a significant impact in China, especially on the country's problematic water supplies--one third of rural inhabitants lack access to safe drinking water--and ambitious water-power projects like the Three Gorges Dam.

Himalayan Glaciers not melting

2008-07-04T18:08:00.000-07:00

Why some Himalayan glacies aren't melting due to climate change
Mountain climate change trends could predict water resources
Newcastle University

August 24, 2006
New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting.

The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink. Researchers from Newcastle University, UK, who publish their findings in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, looked at temperature trends in the Upper Indus Basin over the last century. They found a recent increase in winter temperatures and a cooling of summer temperatures. These trends, combined with an increase in snow and rainfall - a finding from earlier in their research - could be causing glaciers to grow, at least in the higher mountain regions.
These findings are particularly significant because temperature and rain and snow trends in the Upper Indus Basin also impact on the water availability for more than 50 million Pakistani people.

Melt water from glaciers and the previous winter’s snow supplies water for the summer ‘runoff’ which feeds irrigation both in the mountains and in the plains of the Lower Indus. The vast Indus Basin Irrigation System is the mainstay of the national economy of Pakistan, which has 170,000 square kilometres of irrigated land, an area two-thirds the size of the United Kingdom.

Being able to predict trends could contribute to more effective, forward-thinking management of the two major dams in the Upper Indus Basin - called the Mangla Dam and the Tarbela Dam - and thus allow a better long-term control of water for irrigation and power supplies. These dams have the capacity to produce around 5,000 Megawatts of electric power.

The amount of runoff depends on the elaborate interplay of weather conditions. One third of the runoff - that which comes from the higher mountain regions - is largely dependent on the temperature in the summer, research shows. Specifically, the fall of one degree centigrade in mean summer temperature since 1961 is thought to have caused a 20 per cent drop in runoff into the higher mountain rivers.

Yet two-thirds of runoff - that from the lower mountain regions - is dependent on the amount of snow in the previous winter. Heavy winter snowfall is followed by a greater volume of summer runoff.

Dr Hayley Fowler, lead author on the research paper and a senior research associate with Newcastle University’s School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, said: "Very little research of this kind has been carried out in this region and yet the findings from our work have implications for the water supplies of around 50 million people in Pakistan who are dependent on the activity of the glaciers. "Our research suggests we could be able to predict in advance the volume of summer runoff, which is very useful in planning ahead for water resources and also the output from the dams."

Co-researcher Mr David Archer, a visiting fellow with Newcastle University, added: "Our research is concerned with both climate change and the climate variability that is happening from year to year. "Information on variability is more important for the management of the water system as it will help to forecast the inflow into reservoirs and allow for better planning of water use for irrigation.
"However, information on the impacts of climatic change is important for the longer term management of water resources and to help us understand what is happening in the mountains under global warming."

Greenland has experianced significant loss of ice

2008-07-01T00:26:00.000-07:00

Greenland Has Experienced A Significant Loss Of Ice, NASA Research Shows

A NASA-led research team has returned from Greenland after an annual three-week mission to check the health of its glaciers and ice sheet. About 82 percent of Greenland is made up of a giant ice sheet. During the Arctic Ice Mapping Project, researchers measured critical areas of the island's ice sheet as well as its glaciers and monitored changes that may be connected to global climate

MELTING ICE SHEETS OF GREEN LANDS GLACIER

The science team, using laser and radar instruments aboard aircraft, has been closely monitoring the changes

in the ice cover since 1991. Past measurements from the team have shown that areas of ice along the Greenland coast have been thinning while inland areas have thickened. However, when these changes are taken as a whole, Greenland has experienced a significant loss of ice.

The data from past mapping missions and from Earth-orbiting satellites such as NASA's ICESat spacecraft has shown that the ice sheet and glaciers have been melting at an increasing rate over the past several years.

"Knowledge of how ice sheets and glaciers like those on Greenland are changing provide an indirect measure of sea-level changes and indicate trends in world climate," said Bill Krabill, lead investigator of the Greenland mission from the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. "Some of the island's major glaciers have sped up since the turn of the century, with documented thinning from 65 to nearly 100 feet per year. With this mission we measured what's happening to Greenland's ice with a low-flying state-of-the-art laser from just a third of a mile above the surface."

It has been estimated that a 9-inch change in the average height of the central Greenland ice sheet would result in a .12-inch change in the sea level of the world's oceans.

"This mission builds on our existing data from past flights and aids in correlating data from the ice-observing satellites," said Krabill. "The16 years of very precise data we've gathered over the same flight paths gives us a very good look at the health of Greenla nd's ice cover."

ICE SHEETS CONTINUES TO MELT

The 19-person research team, which headed for Greenland on May 1, used a Wallops-built scanning laser system aboard a GPS-guided NASA P-3B aircraft to take detailed measurements of ice elevations,with accuracy

within a few inches. Also onboard, an ice-penetrating

radar system from the University of Kansas, Lawrence,

provided elevation measurements of the bedrock as far as two miles below the ice sheet's surface. From the measurements of these two instruments, researchers determine the thickness of the ice.

"Each year, we refer to the views of glaciologists, NASA radar data, and information from other federal agencies to locate areas where thinning may be occurring, and fly out to those critical areas that may be changing more rapidly," said Krabill. In the end, weather conditions always dictate our data gathering success. We were terrain-hopping at just a third of a mile above the surface with a laser pulsing 5,000 times per second that cannot shoot through the clouds. So low-lying clouds could have prevented us from capturing any data."

This year, the aircraft also carried two new, high-altitude ice-measuring radars tested by their developers, Ohio State University, Columbus, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. If effective, the new sensors could serve as precursors to instruments that could be used aboard a future satellite mission.

Multiple aircraft lifted off from the former U.S. air base Kangerlussauq and Thule Air Base, and primarily covered flight paths flown nearly every year since 1991.

"The aircraft performed in outstanding fashion this year, with no down time in the field, and the crew was outstanding on what were relatively long eight-hour missions," Krabill said. "All of our objectives for the sensors onboard were accomplished. In about two months, we'll finalize results that will offer researchers around the world a glimpse of what we expect will indicate a continuing trend of ice loss on the island."

Largest tropical glacier-Peru

2008-07-01T00:11:00.000-07:00

Peru's glacier vanishing, scientists warn

The world's largest tropical glacier is in danger of disappearing within five years, according to international researchers meeting this week in San Francisco.

Ohio State glaciologist Lonnie Thompson and a team of scientists said they have found evidence the Qori Kalis glacier of the Quelccaya ice cap in the Peruvian Andes could lose half its mass in 12 months and could be gone five years from now.

Thompson gave his presentation Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He told reporters afterward there was little mankind could do to stop the decline of the glacier and others like it.

"The lower elevation tropical glaciers are going right now, no matter what we do we're going to lose the glaciers on [Mount] Kilimanjaro and we're going to lose the lower elevation glaciers in the Andes," said Thompson.

The Quelccaya ice cap covers 44 square kilometres in the Cordillera Oriental region and is the world's largest tropical ice mass. Its biggest glacier, the Qori Kalis, has receded by at least 1.1 kilometres since 1963, when the first formal measurements were taken. The rate of retreat has increased from six metres per year between 1963 and 1978 to 60 metres per year now, said Thompson.

The region also includes Peru's Cordillera Blanca, or White Mountain Range, one of the Andean country's most famous natural landmarks.

fig: vanishing of Qori Kalis Glacier

Climate change research has focused on melting glaciers in the north and south poles, but tropical glaciers also play a valuable role in local ecosystems as they feed rivers that supply fresh water to areas like Peru's arid coast.

Thompson worries the problem of global warming won't be addressed until things get worse.
"The question is, how far down this road do we go before there's any meaningful action to reduce emissions, what does the evidence have to be?" he said. "And unfortunately as human beings — it doesn't matter really what it is — we only deal well with crises."

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report two weeks ago saying evidence of global warming was "unequivocal" and that man-made greenhouse gases were "very likely" behind the rising temperatures and sea levels.

75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050

2008-06-30T23:57:00.000-07:00

75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050, Europe heats up European Environment Agency release November 30, 2005

The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Ten percent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5 000 years, says a new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA), based in Copenhagen.

'The European environment - State and outlook 2005', a five year assessment across 31 countries, provides an overview of Europe's environment and points to challenges of which climate change is just one. Other areas of concern include biodiversity, marine ecosystems, land and water resources, air pollution and health. For the first time, the report has a country by country analysis with performance indicators and comparisons for all of the participants: the EU-25 plus Bulgaria, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Romania, Turkey and including Switzerland.

The report says Europe's average temperature rose by 0.95 °C during the 20th century. This is 35 % higher than the global average increase of 0.7 °C and temperatures will continue to rise. The EU has recognised this and set a target limiting the global temperature increase to 2 °C above pre industrial levels.

'Without effective action over several decades, global warming will see ice sheets melting in the north and the spread of deserts from the south. The continent's population could effectively become concentrated in the centre. Even if we constrain global warming to the EU target of a 2 °C increase, we will be living in atmospheric conditions that human beings have never experienced. Deeper cuts in emissions are needed', says Jacqueline McGlade, Executive director of the EEA.

fig:Glacier coastline

Past EU legislation on environment has worked, says the report. We have cleaned up our water and our air, phased out some ozone depleting substances and have doubled rates of waste recycling. We also have cars that pollute less; without the dramatic improvements made by catalytic converters over the past twenty years, certain emissions would have been ten times the level they are now. Yet, it has taken ten to twenty years for these actions to show results, the report says.

These environmental success stories are now being overtaken by changes in personal consumption patterns. Europeans are living longer and more of us live alone putting greater demands on living space. Between 1990 and 2000, more than 800 000 hectares, of Europe's land was built on. That is an area three times the size of Luxembourg. If this trend continues, our urban area will double in just over a century. Managing urban sprawl is essential if we are to protect our natural resources, says the report. We travel further and more often and are consuming the planet's natural resources at twice the world's average rate. Transport is the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. For example, air travel is expected to double between now and 2030. As a result, we leave a clear footprint outside Europe, depleting natural resources and damaging the world's environment.

Eurobarometer polls show that over 70 per cent of Europeans want decision makers to give equal weight to environmental, economic and social policies. To take these views into account, the report underlines that policy makers must work with each other at European, national and local levels. They must integrate environmental considerations across sectors such as transport, agriculture and energy and set up a framework within which individuals and business can take action.

'Policy makers must be farsighted. We need a gradual shift away from taxes on labour and investment towards taxes on pollution and the inefficient use of materials and land. We also need reforms in the way that subsidies are applied to transport, housing, energy and agriculture. We need subsidies encouraging sustainable practices and efficient technologies', says Professor McGlade.

'With the necessary incentives built in, such reforms will lead to more investment, innovation and competitiveness. We have already seen this in practice in certain countries and sectors. Strong taxation of petrol in Europe and high regulatory standards led to cars that have been almost twice as fuel efficient as cars on America's roads, in recent decades. We have seen the cost of inaction in terms of people's lives and our environment with examples such as the collapse of fish stocks, the use of asbestos in buildings, acid rain and lead in petrol. It pays to act now to secure the long term', says Professor McGlade.

Africa`s Glacier gone by 2025

2008-06-30T23:43:00.000-07:00

Africa's glaciers gone by 2025American Geophysical UnionMay 15, 2006

Fabled equatorial icecaps will disappear within two decades, because of global warming, a study British and Ugandan scientists has found. In a paper to be published 17 May in Geophysical Research Letters, they report results from the first survey in a decade of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains of East Africa. An increase in air temperature over the last four decades has contributed to a substantial reduction in glacial cover, they say.

The Rwenzori Mountains--also known as the Mountains of the Moon--straddle the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Uganda. They are home to one of four remaining tropical ice fields outside of the Andes and are renowned for their spectacular and rare flora and fauna. The mountains' legendary status was set during the second century, when the Greek geographer Ptolemy made a seemingly preposterous but ultimately accurate statement about snow-capped mountains at the equator in Africa: "The Mountains of the Moon whose snows feed the lakes, sources of the Nile."

The glaciers were first surveyed a century ago when glacial cover over the entire range was estimated to be 6.5 square kilometers [2.5 square miles]. Recent field surveys and satellite mapping of glaciers conducted by researchers from University College London, Uganda's Makerere University, and the Ugandan Water Resources Management Department show that some glaciers are receding tens of metres [yards] each year and that the area covered by glaciers halved between 1987 and 2003. With less than one square kilometer [half a square mile] of glacier ice remaining, the researchers expect these glaciers to disappear within the next twenty years.

Richard Taylor of the University College London Department of Geography, who led the study, says: "Recession of these tropical glaciers sends an unambiguous message of a changing climate in this region of the tropics. Considerable scientific debate exists, however, as to whether changes in temperature or precipitation are responsible for the shrinking of glaciers in the East African Highlands that also include Kilimanjaro [in Tanzania] and Mount Kenya." Taylor and his colleagues found that in the Rwenzori Mountains since the 1960s, there are clear trends toward increased air temperature without significant changes in precipitation. A key focus of the research is the impact of climate change on water resources in Africa. Glacial recession in Rwenzori Mountains is not expected to affect alpine river flow, the scientists say, due to the small size of the remaining glaciers. It remains unclear, however, how the projected loss of the glaciers will affect tourism and local traditional belief systems that are based upon the snow and ice, known locally as "Nzururu." "Considering the continent's negligible contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions, it is a terrible irony that Africa, according to current predictions, will be most affected by climate change," added Taylor. "Furthermore, the rise in air temperature is consistent with other regional studies that show how dramatic increases in malaria in the East African Highlands may arise, in part, from warmer temperatures, as mosquitoes are able to colonize previously inhospitable highland areas."

GreenLands Glaciers

2008-06-30T23:25:00.000-07:00

Fig:Greenlands Glaciers

Greenland's Glaciers: Melting and On The Move

The glaciers in southern Greenland are melting and moving. In fact, Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier went from standing still in 1996 to flowing at a rate of 14 kilometers a year by 2005, making it one of the fastest moving glaciers in the world. According to a new study, all of Greenland's coastal glaciers are already experiencing or may soon experience such speedups, meaning that Greenland's ice will contribute even more than expected to the world's rising seas.
"It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes," notes Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Greenland is probably going to contribute more and faster to sea level rise than predicted by current models."
Rignot partnered with Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas to look at satellite data on Greenland's glaciers. New satellites and new techniques allowed the two to figure out how fast the glaciers were moving, thinning and even what the bedrock beneath them looked like. Based on this data, the researchers found that the glaciers were traveling faster than anyone had predicted. They also determined that even more northerly glaciers were on the move and that in just 10 years the amount of fresh water lost by all the glaciers had more than doubled from 90 cubic kilometers of ice loss a year to 224 cubic kilometers. "The amount of water Los Angeles uses over one year is about one cubic kilometer," Rignot points out. "Two hundred cubic kilometers is a lot of fresh water."

Fig:melting glacier(Greenland)

Current climate models do not take into account glacial flow and therefore underestimate the impact of glacial melt and the calving of ice flows, the researchers argue in a paper detailing the findings in today's Science. According to climate records stretching back a century, southern Greenland has warmed three degrees Celsius in just the past 20 years, driving melting that may help lubricate glacial flow along the bedrock, the two speculate. With the higher glacier speeds in mind, they calculate that Greenland currently contributes 0.57 millimeter of ocean level rise every year out of a total of three millimeters.
But Greenland contains an ice sheet that covers 1.7 million square kilometers--an area nearly the size of Mexico--and is as much as three kilometers thick in places. If it all melted, it would raise the world's oceans by seven meters, though that is not likely to happen anytime soon. "The southern half of Greenland is reacting to what we think is climate warming," Rignot adds. "The northern half is waiting, but I don't think it's going to take long."

Greenland`s melting ice sheets may speed rise in sea level

2008-06-30T23:09:00.000-07:00

Greenland's Melting Ice Sheet May Speed Rise in Sea Level
Study Finds No Boost in Antarctic Snowfall to Mitigate Problem

Two new scientific studies measuring Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheet and the pace of Antarctic snowfall suggest that the sea level may be rising faster than researchers previously assumed.
University of Texas at Austin researchers, using twin satellites, determined that the Greenland ice sheet, Earth's second-largest reservoir of fresh water, is melting at three times the rate at which it had been melting over the previous five years. A separate study by 16 international scientists concluded that Antarctic snowfall accumulation has remained steady over the past 50 years, with no increases that

might have mitigated the melting of the ice shelf, as some researchers had assumed would occur.
Taken together, the two reports indicate that global sea level rise may increase more rapidly in the coming years, though the Greenland study is based on only 2 1/2 years of data. The melting of 57 cubic miles a year from Greenland's ice sheet could add 0.6 millimeters alone, which is higher than any previously published measurement for Greenland, according to University of Texas Center for Space Research scientist Jianli Chen.
"It's a very big number," Chen said, noting that for at least a hundred years the sea level has increased an average of 1.8 millimeters annually.
Byron Tapley, one of Chen's co-authors, said the ice loss along the sheet's eastern shoreline is particularly significant because it could help weaken the counterclockwise flow of the North Atlantic Current. The more buoyant fresh water from the ice melt could lower water temperatures and ultimately make Western European winters colder, he said.
"If enough fresh water enters the Norwegian Current and you interrupt return flow, then there could be climate effects in Europe," Tapley said.
But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, questioned why scientists are drawing broad conclusions from data covering such a short time span.
"We now have 'the sky is falling down' on the basis of a few years of data," said Ebell, whose group is partly funded by the fossil-fuel industry.
The paper, written by 16 scientists from seven countries, challenges computer projections that higher temperatures in the southernmost continent will spur greater snowfall accumulation and compensate for the world's melting ice sheets. Using satellite data that looked at both the West and East Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers concluded there has been no real increase in precipitation in the region in the past five decades.
Andrew J. Monaghan, a meteorologist at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center, said in an interview that his findings suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 prediction that Antarctic snowfall would increase 15 to 20 percent by the end of the century may not be borne out. Some researchers had hoped increased snowfall in the region would thicken the Antarctic ice sheets and help counterbalance any future melt.
"It's a much more complex situation than assuming a temperature rise is going to lead to a commensurate increase in precipitation," Monaghan said.

Distribution & Habitat

2008-06-19T22:46:00.000-07:00

Distribution

Polar bears occur only in the Northern Hemisphere. Their range is limited to areas in which the sea is ice covered for much of the year. Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea-ice year-round or visit land only for short periods. Polar bears are common in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas north of Alaska. They occur throughout the East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas of Russia and the Barent's Sea of northern Europe. They are found in the northern part of the Greenland Sea, and are common in Baffin Bay, which separates Canada and Greenland, as well as through most of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Because their principal habitat is the sea-ice surface rather than adjacent land masses, they are classified as marine mammals. In most areas, pregnant females come ashore to create a den in which to give birth to young. Even then, however, they are quick to return to the sea ice as soon as cubs are able. In some areas, notably the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of the polar basin, many females den and give birth to their young on drifting pack ice.

Polar bears are most abundant in shallow-water areas near shore and in other areas where currents and upwellings increase productivity and keep the ice cover from becoming too solidified in winter.Despite apparent preferences for the more productive waters near shorelines and polynyas (areas of persistent open water), polar bears occur throughout the polar basin including latitudes >88.

Because they derive their sustenance from the sea, the distribution of polar bears in most areas changes with the seasonal extent of sea-ice cover. In winter, for example, sea-ice extends as much as 400 km south of the Bering Strait, which separates Asia from North America, and polar bears extend their range to the southernmost extreme of the ice . Sea-ice disappears from most of the Bering and Chukchi Seas in summer, and polar bears occupying these areas may migrate as much as 1000 km to stay with the southern edge of the pack ice.Throughout the polar basin, polar bears spend their summers concentrated along the edge of the persistent pack ice. Significant northerly and southerly movements appear to be dependent on seasonal melting and refreezing of ice near shore .In other areas, for example, Hudson Bay, James Bay, and portions of the Canadian High Arctic, when the sea-ice melts, polar bears are forced onto land for up to several months while they wait for winter and new ice.

Until the 1960s, the prevalent belief was that polar bears wandered throughout the Arctic. Some naturalists felt that individual polar bears were carried passively with the predominant currents of the polar basin.Researchers have known for some time that is not the case. However the advent of radiotelemetry, including the use of satellites,detailed knowledge of polar bear movements was not available.

Habitat

1. Polar bears inhabit arctic sea ice, water, islands, and continental coastlines.

2.Polar bears prefer sea ice habitat with leads and polynyas, next to continental coastlines or islands.

•Leads are water channels or cracks through ice which may remain open (ice free) for only a few minutes to several months, depending upon weather conditions and water currents. Polar bears hunt seals in the leads, using sea ice as a platform.

•Polynyas are areas of water, surrounded by ice, that remain open throughout the year due to winds, upwellings, and tidal currents. Polynyas are important breathing and feeding areas for wintering or migrating marine mammals and birds.

3. Some polar bears follow the lower edge of the ice pack year-round, making extensive migrations as the ice recedes and advances.

4. Some polar bears spend part of the year on land. They have been found as far inland as 200 km (124 mi.).

•Polar bears in warmer climates may become stranded on land. In summer, sea ice melts along the coastlines, and pack ice (floating sea ice, or floes, not connected to land) moves north.

•Most pregnant females spend the autumn and winter on land in maternity dens.

5. Air temperatures in the Arctic average -34°C (-29°F) in winter and 0°C (32°F) in summer. The coldest area in winter is northeastern Siberia, where the temperature has been recorded as low as -69°C (-92°F). The warmest areas in summer are inland regions of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada where temperatures can reach as high as 32°C (90°F).

6. The ocean temperatures in the Arctic are about -1.5°C (29°F) in summer. In winter the ocean temperatures can drop to -2°C (28°F), at which point seawater begins to freeze.

Migration

1. Polar bears travel throughout the year within individual home ranges.

a. Home range size varies among individuals depending upon access to food, mates, and dens.

b. Home ranges tend to be larger than for other mammal species because sea ice habitat changes from season to season and year to year.

(1) A small home range may be 50,000 to 60,000 square km (19,305/23,166 square m.). Small home ranges can be found near Canadian Arctic islands.

(2)A large home range may be in excess of 350,000 square km (135,135 square mi.). Large home ranges can be found in the Bering or Chukchi Seas.

c. Polar bears don't mark or defend their home ranges.

2. Polar bears show "seasonal fidelity": they remain in the same area during the same season.

3. Polar bears are capable of traveling 30 km (19 mi.) or more per day for several days.One polar bear was tracked traveling 80 km (50 mi.) in 24 hours. Another polar bear traveled 1,119 km (695 mi.) in one year.

Population

1. The world polar bear population is estimated to be between 21,000 and 28,000 individuals.

2. Due to governmental regulations on hunting, the population has increased from an estimated 10,000 polar bears in 1968.

3. The ratio of males to females is approximately one to one.

Senses

2008-06-19T22:27:00.000-07:00

A. Hearing.
A polar bear's hearing is probably as sensitive as human hearing. Humans can hear sounds with frequencies as low as 0.02 kHz and as high as 20 kHz.

B. Eyesight.
The eyesight of polar bears appears to be similar to human's. Polar bears have a protective membrane over their eyes, that may help shield the eyes from ultraviolet light.

C. Tactile.
Little is known about a polar bear's sense of touch; however, polar bears have been observed delicately moving or touching objects with the nose, tongue, and claws.

D. Taste.
Polar bears prefer certain foods, but researchers don't know how acute the sense of taste is or how important it is in food preference.

E. Smell.
A polar bear's sense of smell is acute, and it is the most important sense for detecting prey on land. A polar bear can smell a seal more than 32 km (20 mi.) away .

Longevity & Cause of death

2008-06-19T21:49:00.000-07:00

Longevity and Causes of Death.

A. Longevity.
1.Polar bears can live 20 to 30 years, but only a small proportion of polar bears live past 15 to 18 years .
2.The oldest known polar bear in the Arctic lived 32 years. The oldest known polar bear in a zoological park lived 41 years.

B. Aging studies.
Each year as a polar bear grows, a thin layer of cementum is added to the outside of each tooth. Age can be estimated by examining a thin slice of tooth and counting the layers. To estimate the age of a live polar bear, researchers can extract one small, vestigial premolar tooth.

C.Predator and Prey
1.Adult polar bears have no natural predators. Males occasionally kill other males competing for mates. Males periodically kill females protecting cubs.
2.Cubs less than one year old sometimes are prey to adult male polar bears and other carnivores, such as wolves.
3.Newborn cubs may be cannibalized by malnourished mothers.

D. Human interaction.
1.Hunting.
a. Polar bears have been hunted for thousands of years.
(1)Evidence of human polar bear hunts have been found in 2,500- to 3,000-year-old ruins. Arctic peoples have traditionally hunted polar bears for food, clothing, bedding, and religious purposes.
(2)Commercial hunting of polar bears for hides began as early as the 1500s and flourished by the 1700s.
(3)Kills increased substantially in the 1950s and 1960s when hunters began using snowmobiles, boats, and airplanes to hunt polar bears. Public concern about these hunting methods led to an international agreement in 1973 banning the use of aircraft or large motorized boats for polar bear hunts. b. Hunting is the greatest single cause of polar bear mortality.
(1)Today, polar bears are hunted by native Arctic populations primarily for food, clothing, handicrafts, and sale of skins. Polar bears are also killed in defense of people or property.
(2)Hunting is government-regulated in Canada, Greenland, and the United States. Hunting is currently banned in Norway and Russia.

2. Environmental threats.
a. Oil spills from drilling platforms or tankers potentially threaten polar bears.
(1)A polar bear's fur loses its insulating properties when covered with oil.
(2)Oil spills could diminish or contaminate polar bear food sources.
b. The presence of toxic chemicals in polar bears may have long-term effects on their health and longevity.
(1)Toxic chemicals from worldwide industrial activities are carried to the Arctic by air, rivers, and oceans.
(2)Arctic animals in higher food chain levels concentrate greater amounts of toxic chemicals in their tissues than those below them. Polar bears, at the top of the food chain, develop the highest concentrations of all.
(3)Human-made toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and chlordanes are present in the Arctic. These chemicals have been found in significantly high levels in the tissues of polar bears.
(4)Scientists continue to monitor the levels of toxic chemicals in polar bears to determine their long-term effects. c.Radionuclides, from nuclear waste dumping in the Russian Arctic, may have detrimental effects on polar bears, and the Arctic ecosystem as a whole.

E. Starvation.
1.Starvation is the greatest threat to subadult polar bears. Subadults are inexperienced hunters, and often are chased from kills by larger adults.
2.Older, weaker bears also are susceptible to starvation.

F. Disease and parasitism.
As in any animal population, a variety of diseases and parasites can be responsible for polar bear illnesses. Polar bears are especially susceptible to the parasitic worm Trichinella, which they contract by feeding on infected seals. Trichinella larvae encyst in various parts of the polar bear's body, usually muscle tissue. If enough larvae encyst in one area, such as the heart, the tissue becomes severely damaged. Death may result.

Feeding Habits

2008-06-18T21:31:00.000-07:00

Diet and Eating Habits.

A. Food preferences and resources.
1. Polar bears feed mainly on ringed seals and bearded seals. Depending upon their location, they also eat harp and hooded seals and scavenge on carcasses of beluga whales, walruses, narwhals, and bowhead whales.

2. Aquatic stalk.
a. The aquatic stalk is a method also used in summer when seals haul out on sea ice.
b. The polar bear swims toward a hauled-out seal. Once the polar bear reaches the ice edge, the bear quickly emerges from the water and grabs the seal with its claws or teeth.

3. Stalking birth lairs.
a. Stalking ringed seals at their birth lairs is a hunting method polar bears use in spring, when ringed seals give birth to their pups.
b. Ringed seal birth lairs are caves built under snow drifts next to a hole in the ice. The snow drifts are on stable sea ice attached to land.
c. Once a polar bear identifies a birth lair, it slowly and quietly positions itself next to the lair. If a polar bear smells or hears a seal in the lair, it slowly raises up on its hind legs and crashes down with its front paws to break through the lair roof.
d. To break the roof's hard surface, several tries are sometimes needed, which may allow the seal to escape into the water.
e. This method is most commonly used by polar bear females with cubs under one year old.
(1) Mother seals and pups have the high fat content needed for hungry polar bear mothers and their growing cubs.
(2) Male polar bears that may attack young polar bear cubs don't normally hunt seals in birth lairs.
(3) Birth lairs are usually on sea ice attached to land, allowing young cubs (who have little protective blubber) to avoid crossing water.

4. Eating.
a. Once a seal is captured, a polar bear bites it several times on the head and neck before dragging it several meters from the water to feed.
b. The skin and fat are eaten first, followed by the meat.
c. Polar bears often stop to wash during feeding, using water nearby or rubbing in the snow.
d. Polar bears don't always eat the entire kill. Carcass remains are scavenged by other bears, arctic foxes, and gulls.

Reproduction

2008-06-18T21:15:00.000-07:00

A. Sexual maturity.

1. Female polar bears reach sexual maturity at about 4 years .
2. Male polar bears reach sexual maturity at about 6 years .
3. Most male polar bears don't successfully mate until 8 to 10 years and older.

B. Mating activity.
1. Breeding takes place in April and May on the sea ice.
2. During the breeding season, males and females find each other by congregating in the best seal-hunting habitats.
3. Male polar bears have been seen following the tracks of breeding female polar bears for more than 100 km (62 mi.). Scientists are uncertain what signals males use to track breeding females.
4. Competition for females is intense. Females breed about once every three years; therefore, there are about three adult males to every breeding female.
5. Before mating, a female polar bear may be accompanied by several males. The males fight fiercely among themselves until the strongest or largest male succeeds in chasing the others away.

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=fights"

a. A polar bear threatening to attack another polar bear usually lowers its head, flattens its ears back, and gives an open mouth threat with a hisslike roar.
b. Fights are rarely fatal, but do result in broken canines and scars on the head, neck, and shoulders.
6. Dominant males may succeed in breeding several females in a season.
7. Once paired, the male and female stay together for a week or more.
a. Females are induced ovulators, which means the act of mating causes a female to release an egg for fertilization.
b. Several days of mating interactions may be required to stimulate ovulation and guarantee fertilization of the egg.
8. Polar bears may have many different mates over their lifetime.

Physical Characteristic

2008-06-18T21:05:00.000-07:00

Physical Characteristics.

A. Size.
1. Polar bears are the largest land carnivore.

2. Male polar bears (boars) grow two to three times the size of female polar bears (sows). Boars weigh about 350 to more than 650 kg (772-1,433 lb.) and are about 2.5 to 3 m (8.2-9.8 ft.) long (Stirling, 1988).

3. Sows weigh about 150 to 250 kg (331-551 lb.) and are about 2 to 2.5 m (6.6-8.2 ft.) long. Pregnant females can weigh as much as 500 kg (1,102 lb.) (Stirling, 1988).

4. The largest polar bear ever recorded was a male weighing 1,002 kg (2,209 lb.) and measuring 3.7 m (12 ft.) long (Domico, 1988).

B. Body shape.
Compared to other bears, polar bears have elongated bodies and long slender necks.

C. Coloration.

A polar bear's coat is about 2.5 to 5 cm (1-2 in.) thick. A dense, wooly, insulating layer of underhair is covered by a relatively thin layer of stiff, shiny, clear guard hairs.

Adaptation-polar bear

2008-06-16T23:50:00.000-07:00

Adaptations for an Aquatic Environment.

A. polar bear's front paws propel it through the water dog-paddle style. The hind feet and legs are held flat and are used as rudders.

B. Diving.
1. Polar bears make shallow dives when stalking prey, navigating ice floes, or searching for kelp.
2. Polar bears usually swim under water at depths of only about 3 to 4.5 m (9.8-14.8 ft.). They can remain submerged for as long as two minutes (Domico, 1988).
3. No one knows how deep a polar bear can dive. One researcher estimates that polar bears dive no deeper than 6 m (20 ft.).

C. Thermoregulation.
1. Body temperature, which is normally 37C (98.6F), is maintained through a thick layer of fur, a tough hide, and an insulating layer of blubber. This excellent insulation keeps a polar bear warm even when air temperatures drop to -37C (-34F) (Stirling, 1988).
2. Overheating.
a. Polar bears are so well insulated they tend to overheat.
b. Polar bears move slowly and rest often to avoid overheating.
c. Excess heat is released from the body through areas where fur is absent or blood vessels are close to the skin. These areas include the muzzle, nose, ears, footpads, inner thighs, and shoulders.
d. Polar bears will also swim to cool down on warm days or after physical activity.

POLAR BEARS

2008-06-16T23:14:00.000-07:00

Scientific Classification
A. Order - Carnivora.\

The scientific order Carnivora includes bears, dogs, cats, raccoons, otters, weasels, and their relatives. All typical carnivores have well developed claws and a pair of specialized cheek teeth for cutting hard foods.

B. Family - Ursidae.

All bears belong to this family. The family is divided into three subfamilies, Ursinae (black bears, brown bears, polar bears, sloth bears, and sun bears), Tremarctinae (spectacled bears), and Ailuropodinae (giant pandas).

C. Genus, species - Ursus maritimus.
1. There are five other species in the genus Ursus: brown bears, American black bears, Asiatic black bears, sun bears, and sloth bears. Species can be distinguished by size, build, coloration, and habitat.
2. Ursus maritimus is Latin for "sea bear".

D. Fossil record.

The oldest known polar bear fossil is less than 100,000 years old. Polar bears probably developed during the Pleistocene era from an ancestral brown bear. Polar bears and brown bears are still closely related; when cross-bred, they produce fertile offspring.

short

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Carnivora

Family: Ursidae

Genus: Ursus

Species: Ursus maritimus

CONTENTS:

1.EVOLUTION

2.PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

3.HABITAT & DISTRIBUTION

10.BIRTH AND CARE OF YOUNG ONES

11.LONGEVITY & CAUSE OF DEATH

12.SURVIVAL

13.EXTINCTION

ARTICLES ON GLACIERS

2008-06-12T23:25:00.000-07:00

1.NASA:-warming is causing greenland to melt faster than expected
Warming air temperatures are causing Greenland's ice sheet to melt faster than
previously anticipated, reported NASA. Though unlikely, the complete melting of
Greenland's ice sheet would raise global sea level by 23 feet.
Data gathered by a pair of NASA satellites orbiting Earth show Greenland continued to lose ice mass at a significant rate through April 2006, and that the rate of loss is accelerating, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.

2.Future Ice Age Put on the Back Burner
Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton has published a report in the latest edition of New Scientist magazine laying out his research that future ice-ages -- an evolutionary imperative for the planet earth -- could be pushed back some half a million years.

3.Melting glaciers and ice cap will drive sea level rise
Melting glaciers and ice caps will contribute more to global sea level rise this century than the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, reports a study published in the current issue of Science. Also mentioned about the the largest tropical glaciers-peru.
Peru's largest glacier is melting rapidly and could complete disappear by 2012 says a glaciologist from Ohio State University. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco last week, Dr. Lonnie Thompson said that Peru's Qori Kalis glacier is melting at a rate of some 60 meters (200 feet) per year. Qori Kalis glacier is part of the Quelccaya Ice Cap, the largest body of ice in the tropics.

4.Glaciers in western China shrank 20% in 40 years
Glaciers in Western China have melted at "alarming" rates over the past 40 years, according to Chinese state media.

5.Glaciers speed up due to global warming
Antarctic glaciers are moving faster due to global warming.Many researchers made their conclusions about the speeding up of the glaciers of the places like Africa & Switzerland and others.
1-Africa's glaciers gone by 2025
Fabled equatorial icecaps will disappear within two decades, because of global warming, a study British and Ugandan scientists has found. They report results from the first survey in a decade of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains of East Africa. An increase in air temperature over the last four decades has contributed to a substantial reduction in glacial cover, they say.
2-75% of Switzerland's glaciers gone by 2050, Europe heats up
The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Ten percent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland's glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5000 years, says a new report by the European Environment Agency. )

6.Greenpeace pressures China on global warming
Greenpeace stepped up the pressure on China to do something about its surging greenhouse gas emissions, launching a campaign that warns melting glaciers could hurt Chinese agriculture and hydroelectric projects. The environmental group cited a Chinese Academy of Sciences' projection that 80 percent of the glaciers in Tibet and the surrounding region could melt by 2035, though other research suggests more moderate melting.

7.Why some Himalayan glacies aren't melting due to climate change
New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting. The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink.

8.Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting find new studies
Scientists have confirmed that climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, according to an article published in the Journal of Glaciology.

EXAGGERATED SCIENCE

2008-06-09T20:49:00.000-07:00

How global warming research is creating a climate of fear

by Hans von storch and nico stehr

The polar ice caps are disappearing! The Gulf Stream is soon to reverse! Right? Well, maybe. But calling such apocalyptic theories into question is becoming more and more difficult for skeptical scientists. Meanwhile, the public is getting tired of being fed a diet of fear.
Gone are the days when climate researchers would be content to sit in their ivory towers, packed to the gills with supercomputers, crunching numbers. Nowadays, their field is more likely to deliver the material of thrillers, and they themselves have acquired the leading roles. The issue has become so hotly contested and the forecasts so spectacular that they are no longer merely the stuff of media reports. And professionals who make their daily bread staging the apocalypse have taken the bait. Last year, filmmaker Roland Emmerich portrayed a global climate collapse triggered by human activity in his film "The Day After Tomorrow". In January, the film's literary counterpart, the novel State of Fear by bestselling author Michael Crichton, appeared in German bookstores, six month after having been published in English.

Crichton's thriller deals with the violent conflict between sober-minded realists and radical idealists when it comes to the subject of climate. The idealists' weapon is organized fear of abrupt climate change, and they interpret any out-of-the-ordinary weather event as evidence of global warming caused by humans. PR consultants deliver the following advice to environmental groups: "You have to structure your information in such a way that it can always be corroborated, no matter what kind of weather we have." The realists, who claim that there is little evidence that meteorological extremes are caused by human activity, are fighting a losing battle. Their dry scientific facts don't stand a chance in a PR battle with the horrific scenarios painted in Technicolor by the climate idealists.

The film and the novel are similar in some respects. While the impending catastrophe in Emmerich's film is climatic, Crichton predicts an economic collapse in his novel. In both cases, however, the culprits are the greenhouse gases produced by human beings. In the film, it's the emissions themselves that lead to disaster, whereas the novel deals with the effects of fear of an impending climatic catastrophe. In Crichton's book, the idealists are so obsessed by their mission that, in a last-ditch effort to shake up public opinion, they finally trigger the catastrophes they themselves have predicted.

Overselling to get attention

Despite some artful fictionalization of the facts, Crichton has certainly delivered an accurate portrayal of the dynamics of communication among the scientific community, environmental organizations, government and civil society. The scientific community does in fact face a serious problem when it comes to public understanding and perception of climate change. Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.

The climate change caused by human activity is an important issue. But is it really what one US senator calls the "most important problem on the planet?" Don't global conflicts and poverty present challenges of a similar magnitude? And what about population growth, demographic changes and more common natural disasters?

Nowadays, there are few people in the United States who are interested in the Greenhouse Effect. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s it was a different story. There was the great drought of 1988 and then the 1993 Mississippi floods -- both events that really should have provided a wake-up call to the public vis-à-vis climate change. But it failed to materialize in the United States, and interest in the subject quickly waned. According to a survey conducted by CBS in May 2003, environmental problems were no longer ranked among the six hottest topics. Even among environmental problems, the issue of climate change was only ranked seventh. Although public opinion in Germany has taken a somewhat different course, how much longer will that be the case?

Catastrophe is interesting: Sober analysis boring

Like the protagonists in Crichton's thriller, the general belief is that in order to keep public attention focused on the issue of "climate catastrophe" (a term, incidentally, that doesn't exist outside of German-speaking countries), it has to be presented "somewhat more attractively." In the early 1990s, just as Germany was being hit by severe wind storms, the German media were reporting that the storms were becoming more and more severe. Since then, storms of this magnitude have once again become less common in northern Europe, a fact now ignored by the media. They have also ignored the fact that changes in barometric pressure measured in Stockholm since the days of Napoleon reveal no systematic change in the frequency and severity of storms. Instead, the media are now filled with stories of heat waves and floods. Like the characters in Crichton's novel who incite public fear, the media are now claiming that all kinds of extreme events are increasing in frequency. Using this logic, a drought in the German state of Brandenburg fits together seamlessly with a catastrophic flood of the Oder River and the two events don't contradict each other.

In addition to normal floods and storms, other more dramatic threat scenarios -- such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream that would lead to a drop in temperatures in large parts of Europe or the rapid melting of the Greenland ice shelf -- are being added to the image of approaching disaster. There was even public speculation as to whether the Asian tsunamis could somehow be attributed to the disastrous work of the human race.

Public attention won't remain focused on these issues for long. Soon people will become inured to climate warnings and return to more everyday matters: joblessness, trans-Atlantic enmity, Turkey's joining the European Union or Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles. Because of our short attention spans, we will experience how the prophets of doom paint the dangers of climate change in ever more lurid detail. One can already imagine the future images of horror: a breaking off of the western Antarctic ice shelf, which would cause sea levels to rise dramatically, and, after a few decades of unbridled carbon dioxide emissions, an abrupt temperature shift that would make the earth's atmosphere as incompatible with human life as that of Venus. Can such predictions, which have been known to the public for a long time, readily compete with the Hollywood images created by directors like Emmerich?

The price for provoking fear is high, because it's a practice that sacrifices the otherwise prized principle of caution. A scarce resource -- public attention and confidence in the reliability of science -- is being consumed without being renewed by a practice of offering positive examples.

But what do climate researchers themselves think about the issue, and how do they interact with the media and the public at large?

Is there scientific consensus?

The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. In this case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gases as much as possible.

This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.

But most researchers do believe that a shift in global climate caused by human activity is already occurring, and that it will accelerate in the future and become even more apparent. Higher temperatures and higher sea levels will accompany this shift. Scientists predict that in the more distant future, that is, in about 100 years, a substantial rise in greenhouse gas levels in the Earth's atmosphere will lead to more severe precipitation events in the northern hemisphere; some regions could experience more severe and others weaker storms.

But there are always scientists for whom, in keeping with the maxims of the alarmists in Crichton's book, these scenarios are insufficiently dramatic. For this reason, they are increasingly drawing connections between current extreme weather events and the climate shift caused by human activity. They do, it is true, tend to use cautious language in drawing such parallels and interviews become exercises in understatement. When asked such questions as: "Are high water levels on the Elbe River, the hurricanes in Florida and this year's mild winter evidence of climate catastrophe?" they respond that while this cannot be proven scientifically, some believe it to be the case. None of these statements is incorrect, but when combined they lead to the obvious conclusion that of course these weather events are proof of climate catastrophe, a statement so explicit that no one would venture to volunteer it.

Always choose the most dramatic figure

The pattern is always the same. The significance of individual events is turned into material suitable for media presentation and is then cleverly dramatized. When the outlook for the future is discussed, the scenario that predicts the highest growth rates for greenhouse gas emissions -- which, of course, comes with the most dramatic climatic consequences -- is always selected from among all possible scenarios. Those predicting significantly smaller increases in greenhouse gas levels are not mentioned.

Who benefits from this? The assumption is made that fear compels people to act, but we forget that it also produces a rather short-lived reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be "better" in the short term, thereby also positively affecting reputations and research funding. But to ensure that the entire system continues to function in the long term, each new claim about the future of our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last. It's difficult to attract the public's attention to the climate-related extinction of animal species following reports on apocalyptic heat waves. The only kind of news that can trump these kinds of reports would be something on the order of a reversal of the Gulf Stream.

All of this leads to a spiral of exaggeration. Each individual step in this process may seem harmless, but on the whole, the knowledge imparted to the public about climate, climatic fluctuations, climate shift and climatic effects is dramatically distorted.

Unfortunately, the corrective mechanisms in science are failing. Public reservations with regard to the standard evidence of climate catastrophe are often viewed as unfortunate within the scientific community, since they harm the "worthy cause," especially because, as scientists claim, they could be "misused by skeptics." Dramatization on a small scale is considered acceptable, whereas correcting exaggeration is viewed as dangerous because it is politically inopportune. This means that doubts are not voiced publicly. Instead, the scientific community creates the impression that the scientific underpinnings of climate change research are solid and only require minor additions and adjustments.

Science losing objectivity

This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.

An example of this phenomenon is the discussion surrounding the so-called hockey stick, a temperature curve that supposedly portrays developments of the last 1,000 years. The curve derives its name from its hockey stick-like shape. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of climate researchers established by the United Nations, rashly institutionalized the hockey stick curve as an iconic symbol of human-induced climate change. In the curve, the upward-tilting blade of the hockey stick that follows decades of stable temperatures represents human influence.

In an article we published in the professional journal "Science" in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this hockey stick curve is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public.

The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both science and society will have missed an opportunity.

Hans von Storch, 55, is the director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, which researches water and climate in coastal areas. Together with Nico Stehr, 62, a sociologist at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen, Germany, is a long-time researcher of public attitudes about climate change.

Reference; International Spiegel Online news

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

2008-06-07T00:08:00.000-07:00

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING
"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century."
One of the most current and widely discussed factor which could lead to the ultimate end of existence of Earth and man is global warming and its devastating effects. Scientists have asked how fast the Earth is heating up, and how the warming effects on Earth may effect crops and climatic conditions. Several current trends clearly demonstrate that global warming is directly impacting on; rising sea levels, the melting of icecaps, and significant worldwide climatic changes. This paper will discuss the degree of destruction caused by global warming, contributing factors to warming, and finally, discuss what we can do to decrease the current rate of global warming. I would also like to present opposing viewpoints to the effects of the warming process. In my understanding, global warming represents a fundamental threat to all living things on earth.
WHAT IS THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" ALL ABOUT?
It is important to understand and discuss the significance of global warming. Global warming is also known as the "Greenhouse effect". The "Greenhouse Earth" is surrounded by a shield of atmospheric gases, rather than a glass or a plastic cover. The air that makes up our atmosphere consists primarily of nitrogen and oxygen molecules (N2 at 78% and O2 at 21%). A large number of "trace gases" make up the remainder of air's composition. Many of these, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the so called "greenhouse" gases. If you have ever felt the piercing cold of the clear winter night sky and wondered why you feel warmer on a cloudy winter night, you have experienced the atmospheric greenhouse effect firsthand. Physics tell us that any object warmer than absolute zero will radiate energy. Cooler objects emit longer waves (in the infrared region) while hotter ones radiate shorter wavelengths. Our sun, powered by its hot, nuclear fusion reaction, produces radiant energy in the visible and ultraviolet regions with relatively short wavelengths. Of the sunlight that strikes the earth, about 70% is absorbed by the planet and its atmosphere, while the other 30% is immediately reflected. If the earth did not re-radiate most of this newly absorbed energy back into space the world would continue to get warmer. Instead, an energy balance is maintained.
The earth is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) warmer than it would be if it did not have the atmospheric blanket of greenhouse gases and clouds around it. Clouds and greenhouse gases keep the earth warm. Once warmed, their molecules then radiate a portion of this heat energy back to earth, creating more warming on the surface of our planet. It is this radiation which causes atmospheric gases to move back to earth that scientists call the "greenhouse effect".
Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by man's burning of fossil fuels and the forests is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas warming. Other gases (CFCs,

methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone) are responsible for the rest. Increases in all these gases are due to mankind's explosive population growth over the last century, and increased industrial expansion. Approximately 80% of atmospheric CO2 increases are due to man's use of fossil fuels: oil, coal, and gas. These petroleum-based energy sources first came into use with the burning of coal during Since 1945 petroleum consumption has increased dramatically, due in large part to increased usage of automobiles worldwide, and the substitution of mechanized farm machinery for animal power. "Mankind is in the process of conducting a major, unintentional experiment, that of feeding back into the atmosphere in a short space of geological time the fossils fuels that have slowly accumulated over the past 500 million years."
In 1958, scientists began to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The site selected for these measurements was on top of the volcanic mountain of Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. CO2 measurements at the Hawaiian site have continued. The instruments show the level of CO2 has been steadily increasing (about 0.4% per year) from a level of 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 353 ppm in 1990. Clearly, Earth's natural mechanisms for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere cannot handle the large quantities of CO2 being added by modern man. Scientists believe nearly 1/2 of the CO2 being emitted each year remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is being absorbed by trees and the oceans. As a result, CO2 measurements show a continuing build-up of CO2 greenhouse gases in the air, gases that will eventually lead to more global warming.

CURRENT TRENDS.
The global effects of the greenhouse effect cannot be directly predicted simply because we do not have enough knowledge in the subject. However, we have been able to draw direct connections between certain natural phenomenon that supports the idea that something is changing.
Global warming has great effect on crops and weather conditions around the world. The northern hemisphere contains more land area than the southern hemisphere, and conversely, a lower percentage of the world's oceans. Since oceans absorb more heat than land areas, it is not surprising that most climate models predict faster heating over the northern hemisphere than the global average. In addition, models predict faster temperature increases at higher latitudes. If global warming trends continue, high temperatures everywhere in the US may reduce US agricultural productivity. Northern continental areas are projected to have drier summer soils, due in part to earlier snow melts in the spring, and hotter, more cloudless summers, causing extensive evaporation of ground moisture. In addition, if the inland areas of the northern hemisphere are expected to receive less moisture, then, lake and river levels will be lower. Some reports predict the level of the Great Lakes will drop between 2 and 8 feet. River flows in the western US may be very vulnerable to increase temperatures expected as result of the greenhouse effect.
When many people think of global warming, their first concern is the possible rise of sea levels. With a large number of the world's cities in coastal areas, this is a significant problem. There are two major causes of rising sea levels. First, extra water is produced when ice melts. Secondly, the natural expansion of sea water as it becomes warmer. The range of sea ice around both poles continues to shrink, as it melts. Even with the level of greenhouse gases present today, the earth may warm enough in the next 50 years or so to completely melt the sea ice located on the poles.
Damage from rising seas is very diverse. Buildings and roads close to the water could be flooded and they could suffer damage from hurricanes and tropical storms. "There are good physical reasons to suggest that more intense storms (hurricanes) could result from global warming." Warmer oceans cause more intense storms. Experts believe that global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes by over 50 percent. Hurricane Andrew's devastation in 1992 set new records. According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the 1990 season was the most active year on their records for combined Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes. Damage caused by future hurricanes to populated areas will be more severe since higher sea levels are predicted for the next century. In addition, as the sea rises, beach erosion takes place, particularly on steep banks. Wetlands are lost as sea levels rise. Another serious problem is the threat of salt water intruding into underground fresh water reserves in coastal areas.
In 1992, a report was published by the United Nations, which proposes that if CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue with present trends (which is the case), the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands will flood by the year 2100. Furthermore, the islands of the Maldives would completely disappear. This would happen if only a two foot increase in sea level occured.

FOREST DESTRUCTION CREATES MORE HEAT:
Trees play a unique role in the global carbon cycle. They are the largest land-based natural mechanism for removing CO2 from the air. (CO2 is also removed by the oceans and ocean organisms.)
Trees are able to store a large amount of CO2 in their structures. An acre of forest will absorb about 10 times the CO2 amount absorbed by an acre of crop land or grassland. One tree absorbs about 13 pounds of CO2 per year, and each one acre of forest absorbs about 2.8 tons of CO2. However, when trees are burned, the carbon locked in the structure is released into the air in the form of CO2. Today, the shrinking world forests are not able to absorb all the CO2 created by human beings while burning fossil fuels. Everyday over 5500 acres of rain forest are destroyed, and over 50 million acres are destroyed every year. Global CO2 levels rise approximately 0.4 percent each year, to levels not experienced on this planet for millions of years. Planting more trees and reducing timber cuts world-wide will help restore the imbalance, and perhaps buy time as ways are found to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions.

POPULATION GROWTH CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING.
The intellectual powers that we enjoy has enabled us to make effective use of technology and thereby changed the environment. Technology is partly responsible for explosive population growth and responsible for the resulting damage to Earth's resources. The industrial revolution caused a rapid increase in the Population growth, as oil and gas fuels were exploited for our use. There is a clear link between the problems of global warming and overpopulation, as increases in CO2 levels follows growth in population. Presently, we have too many people on Earth, who are using technologies that are destructive for the Earth. We cannot continue to grow, and make use of limited natural resources.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS:
Global warming is big business. Some economists argue that a warmer climate could benefit certain crops and the farming communities. However, property insurers are predicting that worsening storms caused by global warming could eventually bankrupt the insurance industry. Insurance companies are now trying to form strategic alliances, and pool resources which could cover severe economic loss from climatic changes.
In addition, the costs to implement a worldwide plan to cut the production of CO2 and other gases which contribute to global warming would cost approximately 3 percent of the World's total GDP. However, there is a dispute whether the industrialized world should be responsible for the main economic contributions to clean up this planet. It is important to realize that many less industrialized nations are unable to afford actions to prevent an increase in CO2, and the fact that they have no incentive to reduce the carbon emissions that cause the "greenhouse" effect. Several less industrialized nations argue that the developed world was allowed to use of the nature in creating welfare, and that it is now morally right for them to do the same. I believe that funds dedicated to the former Cold war should be used for world ecology.

OPPOSING VIEW POINTS IS GLOBAL WARMING A THREAT?
Certain scientists believe that global warming is not a threat and the planet is essentially cooling off. They argue that the factors causing the phenomenon and the measurements are not fully understood, and that it is impossible to draw any conclusions whether the warming of the earth is a purely natural occurrence. These people, believe that the trend is a false alarm and that it is not a sign of a fore coming global disaster. In addition, Industrial forces argue that human beings can adapt to the changes caused by global warming, but they refuse to mention anything about the environmental impact of climatic changes.
Other opponents to the Global warming theory believes that most changes are due to the energy of the sun is fluctuating. Large sunspot activity is thought to be partially responsible for the "Little Ice Age" from 1450 to 1850. This climate change is well documented in history with many impacts on civilization in Europe, including famines. The temperature fluctuation was only about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, some researchers believe that smoke from the burning of tropical forests and grasslands causes a strong cooling force on the climate. This cooling effect could nearly equal the warming power built by greenhouse gases created by the fires.
Furthermore, in the issue regarding rising sea levels, It is important to realize that the elevations of various coastal land areas are rising and sinking due to geological factors. Thus, the ocean levels may not rise as much as we think, as continents may be sinking.
In addition, some researchers believe that global warming is foreshadowing a coming ice-age. The last ice age occurred as the Earth's climate was warming. In the Arctic regions, more water would evaporate in summer, and fall onto the land as snow in winter. The winters would not be so warm as to melt all of this snow, thus glaciers would grow. Also, some carbon compounds released in the atmosphere may help prevent global warming. These particles reflects sunshine, which is redirected into space.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO DECREASE GLOBAL WARMING.
There are several things which you can do directly after reading this paper. However, some of the actions which we all have to take will slightly decrease your present standards of living.
First, since the largest portion of electricity in the US is produced by burning coal, we should try to cut-down on our demand for electricity. Coal combustion creates the largest amount of CO2 per energy unit of any fossil fuel. Coal and oil together represent 80% of the US fuel supply used to generate electricity. When we reduce electric power use, we save money, breathe cleaner air, and help to reduce the global warming problem. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity saved keeps 1.5 to 2 pounds of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Americans waste more energy than any other nation. I believe it is time to make our lives, factories, and homes more efficient. Look around at home, and at your work place, and you will find several ways in which you can decrease the use of electricity. For instance, plant several trees on the south side of your house where they can give shade during the hot summer months. Also, install an energy efficient thermostat, with a day and night timer.
Second, decrease the use of your car. If you can't afford to buy a new fuel-efficient car in the next few years, consider selling or junking your gas demanding car and buying a smaller, efficient used car. Besides saving money on gas, oil, tires, parts, and repairs, you can help reduce greenhouse gases. Furthermore, no matter what type of car you drive, be sure to operate it efficiently, try to carpool to work or ride the bus, keep the car tuned up, walk or ride your bike for short distances, park and walk do not use "drive thru" services.
Third, try to follow the following environmental policy of "Reduce....Reuse.....Recycle." Reuse of anything is the easiest and best way to recycle. Save containers, bags, everything that you may be able to use in the future. Also, use cloth towels and napkins instead of paper ones, and use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones.
Furthermore, you can reduce the need to recycle paper by getting off the junk mail lists. Why should trees be destroyed for mail you do not even want to receive? In addition, always remember that recycling is only effective when you buy products made from recycled materials. Otherwise, what is the point of recycling?
Also, remember that each time you make a purchase, you either reinforce a bad environmental product, or you encourage a good one. I believe that people should try to buy quality products that can be used for a long time, buy products with minimal packaging, and not buy disposable products. We certainly have to make-up our minds whether our success as an individual should not be based on the quantity of our consumption, or on the quality of our natural environment.
I believe that It is time to examine our moral values. Examine our attitudes as they relate to our natural world. Each of us needs to ask ourselves: What makes us really happy? What makes us feel secure? It is highly questionable if money and tangible objects make us more happy, it is even possible that we tend to be less happy with our life's when we have a lot of tangible objects and money to care for. Has our striving for more and more materialistic consumption caused us to forget that we are living human beings? We have to realize that we have much more in common with the plants, animals, air and water than we have with the mechanical, chemical and electronic world we have created around us.
Unfortunately, the disbalance which we have created between our life's and the Earth is already showing the signs of disaster. "Earth in the Balance" is moving to the Earth in imbalance, which, in the long run will cease to exist. Remember, we are all in the greenhouse together, nobody can stop the world and get off.

STANFORD SOLAR CENTRE

2008-06-06T23:35:00.000-07:00

GLOBAL WARMING

What is it?

Graphics from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report Summary
Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
Average global temperatures may increase by 1.4-5.8ºC (that's 2.5 - 10.4º F) by the end of the 21st century. Although the numbers sound small, they can trigger significant changes in climate. (The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC.) Besides resulting in more hot days, many scientists believe an increase in temperatures may lead to changes in precipitation and weather patterns. Warmer ocean water may result in more intense and frequent tropical storms and hurricanes. Sea levels are also expected to increase by 0.09 - 0.88 m. in the next century, mainly from melting glaciers and expanding seawater . Global warming may also affect wildlife and species that cannot survive in warmer environments may become extinct. Finally, human health is also at stake, as global warming may result in the spreading of certain diseases such as malaria, the flooding of major cities, a greater risk of heat stroke for individuals, and poor air quality.

Climate change is very likely having an impact now on our planet and its life, according to the latest installment of a report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And the future problems caused by rising seas, growing deserts, and more frequent droughts all look set to affect the developing world more than rich countries, they add. The report is the second chapter of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment -- the most comprehensive summary yet of research into the causes and effects of climate change. To read more, visit Effects of climate change tallied up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors
Greenhouse Gases
The increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity is often cited as one of the major causes of global warming. These greenhouse gases reabsorb heat reflected from the Earth's surface, thus trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This natural process is essential for life on Earth because it plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. However, over the last several hundred years, humans have been artificially increasing the concentration of these gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases build up and prevent additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth, thereby trapping excess heat.

Solar Variability & Global Warming

Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate

change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30

years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends & Effects; Scientific Studies

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been studying global warming for years. Their most recent report, issed in February 2007, (see Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (summary for policymakers), U.N. Report Confirms Human Activity to Blame for Earth's Warming Climate (from Voice of America), and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), concludes that "The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous exide are primarily due to agriculture." The report goes on to note that these findings come with a "very high confidence rate [words emphasized in italics in the report summary] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."
The primary place where scientific studies related to global warming are reported is the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Based on the outcome from a considerable number of studies in various fields related to global warming, the AGU has issued a statement: Human Impacts on Climate.
The American Meteorological Society, which promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences, has also just issued a statement on global changes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is the data that show global warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels?
To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?
My spiritual leaders disagree with the scientists, how do I determine whom to believe?

OZONE LAYER

2008-06-06T21:39:00.000-07:00

I.The Ozone Layer
The Earth's atmosphere is divided into several layers. The lowest region, the troposphere, extends from the Earth's surface up to about 10 kilometers (km) in altitude. Virtually all human activities occur in the troposphere. Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain on the planet, is only about 9 km high. The next layer, the stratosphere, continues from 10 km to about 50 km. Most commercial airline traffic occurs in the lower part of the stratosphere.
FIG:

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998.
As shown in the graph, most atmospheric ozone is concentrated in a layer in the stratosphere, about 15-30 kilometers above the Earth's surface. Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. It is blue in color and has a strong odor. Normal oxygen, which we breathe, has two oxygen atoms and is colorless and odorless. Ozone is much less common than normal oxygen. Out of each 10 million air molecules, about 2 million are normal oxygen, but only 3 are ozone.
However, even the small amount of ozone plays a key role in the atmosphere. The ozone layer absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun, preventing it from reaching the planet's surface. Most importantly, it absorbs the portion of ultraviolet light called UVB. UVB has been linked to many harmful effects, including various types of skin cancer, cataracts, and harm to some crops, certain materials, and some forms of marine life.
At any given time, ozone molecules are constantly formed and destroyed in the stratosphere. The total amount, however, remains relatively stable. The concentration of the ozone layer can be thought of as a stream's depth at a particular location. Although water is constantly flowing in and out, the depth remains constant.
While ozone concentrations vary naturally with sunspots, the seasons, and latitude, these processes are well understood and predictable. Scientists have established records spanning several decades that detail normal ozone levels during these natural cycles. Each natural reduction in ozone levels has been followed by a recovery. Recently, however, convincing scientific evidence has shown that the ozone shield is being depleted well beyond changes due to natural processes.
II. Ozone Depletion
For over 50 years, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were thought of as miracle substances. They are stable, nonflammable, low in toxicity, and inexpensive to produce. Over time, CFCs found uses as refrigerants, solvents, foam blowing agents, and in other smaller applications. Other chlorine-containing compounds include methyl chloroform, a solvent, and carbon tetrachloride, an industrial chemical. Halons, extremely effective fire extinguishing agents, and methyl bromide, an effective produce and soil fumigant, contain bromine. All of these compounds have atmospheric lifetimes long enough to allow them to be transported by winds into the stratosphere. Because they release chlorine or bromine when they break down, they damage the protective ozone layer. The discussion of the ozone depletion process below focuses on CFCs, but the basic concepts apply to all of the ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere.
The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.
Large fires and certain types of marine life produce one stable form of chlorine that does reach the stratosphere. However, numerous experiments have shown that CFCs and other widely-used chemicals produce roughly 84% of the chlorine in the stratosphere, while natural sources contribute only 16%.
Large volcanic eruptions can have an indirect effect on ozone levels. Although Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption did not increase stratospheric chlorine concentrations, it did produce large amounts of tiny particles called aerosols (different from consumer products also known as aerosols). These aerosols increase chlorine's effectiveness at destroying ozone. The aerosols only increased depletion because of the presence of CFC - based chlorine. In effect, the aerosols increased the efficiency of the CFC siphon, lowering ozone levels even more than would have otherwise occurred. Unlike long-term ozone depletion, however, this effect is short-lived. The aerosols from Mt. Pinatubo have disappeared, but satellite, ground-based, and balloon data still show ozone depletion occurring closer to the historic trend.
One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarcticathat has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years.
In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole.
Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years.
Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.

III. The World's Reaction
The initial concern about the ozone layer in the 1970s led to a ban on the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in several countries, including the U.S. However, production of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances grew rapidly afterward as new uses were discovered.
Through the 1980s, other uses expanded and the world's nations became increasingly concerned that these chemicals would further harm the ozone layer. In 1985, the Vienna Convention was adopted to formalize international cooperation on this issue. Additional efforts resulted in the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. The original protocol would have reduced the production of CFCs by half by 1998.
After the original Protocol was signed, new measurements showed worse damage to the ozone layer than was originally expected. In 1992, reacting to the latest scientific assessment of the ozone layer, the Parties to the Protocol decided to completely end production of halons by the beginning of 1994 and of CFCs by the beginning of 1996 in developed countries.
Because of measures taken under the Montreal Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Levels of total inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere peaked in 1997 and 1998. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years.
IV. Stratospheric Protection Division
In addition to regulating the end of production of the ozone-depleting substances, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements several other programs to protect the ozone layer under Title VI of the Clean Air Act. These programs include refrigerant recycling, product labeling, banning nonessential uses of certain compounds, and reviewing substitutes.

CARBON CYCLE SCIENCE

2008-06-06T20:52:00.002-07:00

Carbon Cycle Science
Global climate projections and regional climate forecasts depend on understanding the path of carbon through our environment.
Projecting climate into the future and forecasting regional impacts depends on our understanding of the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere, oceans and land ecosystems. The atmospheric measurements and analyses required to track the fate of carbon dioxide emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels and biomass, and to reduce uncertainties in how the exchange of carbon responds to the variations and trends of climate and land use.
What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).
fig;c-cycle

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exhanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominatly produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.
Why is the Carbon Cycle important?
While CO2 is only a very small part of the atmosphere (0.04%), it plays a large role in the energy balance of the planet.
CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a blanket over the planet by trapping longwave radiation, which would otherwise radiate heat away from the planet. As the amount of CO2 increases, so will its warming effect. CO2 is the largest contributor (currently 63%) to this effect by long-lived gases and its role increases each year. The additional burden of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain for a very long time, of the order of thousands of years, if we have to rely on the natural mechanixms of erosion and sedimentation to process the added CO2.
What do we know about the Carbon Cycle?
Owing primarily to the burning of fossil fuels and secondarily to changes in land-use, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing globally since the onset of the industrial revolution. Based on 50 years of direct observations of the atmosphere, it is clear that this trend continues and is accelerating. From observatories and cooperative sampling sites around the world, A global greenhouse gases and works with partners to improve the accuracy and reliability of these measurements in order to improve our understanding of the sources, sinks, and trends of this important gas and to improve our predictive capability. This continuing record is critical to understanding the potential evolution of global climate as well as aiding or verifying international management strategies.
fig;green house gas index

What don't we know about the Carbon Cycle?
Although we have a good sense of what is happening with CO2 on a global basis, and have a sound system for following large-scale trends, regional information is needed if society is ever to manage or verify carbon emissions. We must understand regional variations in the sources and sinks of CO2 because they help identify possible sequestration or emission management options. Ideally, these regional evalutions would be done on a global basis. Our first and perhaps most important step is to focus on the North American continent.

Impacts of increasing CO2 on other systems
Continued emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will affect climate and ocean chemistry, subsequently influencing both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. The warming effects of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases impinge on agriculture, natural systems, and a host of environmental variables. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere also directly translates to increasing acidity of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, which is corrosive to the shells and skeletal material of many marine organisms. Subsequent impacts on ecosystems are largely not understood.

What will we need to know in the future?
Anthropogenic emissions, emissions limitations, sequestration, and ocean chemistry will likely play leading roles in the future atmospheric CO2 burden. Coupled models will be required for long term projections. Answers to key questions such as the following will require careful observation and skilled modeling, all of which we aim to achieve, working together with our partners. We will also need an early warning system for potentially large, but hard to predict, changes in the carbon cycle, such as massive emissions of CO2 from frozen carbon compounds in Arctic permafrost as it warms up.
Related topics
How can we gain enough confidence in these models for them to aid in decision making?
Which features can be validated?
Can we estimate the length of time that a particular sequestration option is secure?
What are biophysical limits of biological sequestration?
How much CO2 can be stored in geological reservoirs, how much in the oceans?
What are likely environmental impacts of different strategies?
How does the effectiveness of sequestration compare to decreasing the "carbon intensity" of our activities?
How does society benefit from this knowledge?
If society is to manage or reduce carbon emissions in the future, reliable and accurate information will be needed on local, regional, and global scales. Atmospheric measurements of the spatial and temporal trends of CO2 in the atmosphere are essential for reaching quantitative understanding the sources and sinks of this gas. Without accurate measurements, the effictiveness of mitigation or verification of emission reduction become very uncertain. So is evaluation of new energy strategies. Society will be increasingly prepared to deal with the shifts of regional and global climate. In the future, coupling CO2 models with other environmental models will improve predictions and long-term stewardship strategies.

PRACTICES - PEOPLES & GOVERNMENT

2008-06-04T22:19:00.000-07:00

What are people doing to stop global warming?
People are doing many things to try to stop global warming. One thing people are doing is carpooling. Carpooling is driving with someone to a place that you are both going to. This minimizes the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air by a car.
Another thing that people are doing is being more careful about leaving things turned on like the television, computer, and the lights. A lot of people are taking time away from the television, and instead, they are spending more time outdoors. This helps our planet out a lot. Now, more people are even riding busses, walking to school, and riding their bikes to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. Planting trees and recycling also helps. If you recycle, less trash goes to the dump, and less trash gets burned. As a result, there are fewer greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.
Watch what you buy. Many things, such as hairspray and deodorant, now are made to have less of an impact on the atmosphere. Less greenhouse gasses will rise into the air, and global warming will slow down.

What is the government doing to stop global warming?
The government is doing many things to help stop global warming. The government made a law called The Clean Air Act so there is less air pollution. Global warming is making people get very bad illnesses that could make them disabled, very sick, and sometimes even die. The Clean Air Act is making many companies change their products to decrease these problems. Part of the law says that you may not put a certain amount of pollutants in the air. Hairspray and some other products, like foam cups, had this problem. Making and using these products let out too much volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), ozone-destroying chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), and related chemicals (such as CO2) into the air. Now, almost all of these products have a label on them telling people what this product can do to the environment and many people. By 2015 all products listed on the Clean Air Act will have this label on them:
WARNING: contains or manufactured with (the chemical would go here. For example chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), a substance which harms public health and the environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Almost all of the other chemicals that could be harmful will have this label on them hopefully by this time (2015) as well.
The Clean Air Act has also made car companies change some of the things inside of the cars. Cars pollute a lot. While cars make more than half of the world’s smog (visible pollution in the air), many things that cars need to move and heat up make even more pollution. Some things that are inside of cars, buses, trucks, and motorcycles, like gasoline, pollute the air when the fuel is burned. It comes out as a chemical and when mixed in the air, forms smog. Smog is a kind of pollution that you see in the form of a cloud. If you have ever been to California you can see a lot of smog in some places. Sometimes the smog gets so bad that you cannot see at all! Smog forms when car exhaust, pollution from homes, and pollution from factories mixes in the air and has a chemical reaction. The sun’s heat and light add to the reaction.
Cars, buses, and trucks are also responsible for over 50% of dangerous chemicals let into the air. Some of these chemicals can cause cancer, birth defects, trouble breathing, brain and nerve damage, lung injures, and burning eyes. Some of the pollutants are so harmful that they can even cause death.
What are some of the other dangerous chemicals?
Some other chemicals that cause air pollution and are bad for the environment and people are:
Ozone- Ozone is produced when other pollution chemicals combine. It is the basic element of smog. It causes many different kinds of health issues dealing with the lungs. It can damage plants and limit sight. It can also cause a lot of property damage.
VOC’s (volatile organic compounds, smog formers)- VOC’s are let into the air when fuel is burned. This chemical can cause cancer. It can also harm plants.
NOx (nitrogen dioxide)- This chemical forms smog. It is also formed by burning sources of energy, like gas, coal, and oil, and by cars. This chemical causes problems in the respiratory system (including the lungs). It causes acid rain, and it can damage trees. This chemical can eat away buildings and statues.
CO (carbon monoxide)- The source of this chemical is burning sources of energy. It causes blood vessel problems and respiratory failures.
PM-10 (particulate matter)- The source of this chemical is plowing and burning down fields. It can cause death and lung damage. It can make it hard for people to breathe. The smoke, soot, ash, and dust formed by this chemical can make many cities dirty.
Sulfur Dioxide- This chemical is produced by making paper and metals. This chemical can cause permanent lung damage. It can cause acid rain which kills trees and damages building and statues.
Lead- This chemical is in paint, leaded gasoline, smelters, and in lead storage batteries. It can cause many brain and nerve damages and digestive problems.
Kid can help stop global warming, too!!
Although adults do many things to help stop global warming, kids can do just as much. Kids can’t do hard things like making a law, but we can do easier things like not watching as much TV. You can listen to your parents when they say, turn off your lights or go play outside. Listening to them and actually trying to help can help you, your environment, and the world.

RATE OF CLIMATE WARMING

2008-06-04T22:11:00.000-07:00

HOW FAST IS THE EARTH HEATING UP?
Much debate in the last five years about the greenhouse effect has centered on interpreting temperature numbers generated at weather stations all over the world. The data from these thermometers are averaged and plotted in attempts to determine just how fast the earth has heated up since the measurements began. There is now no doubt the world is getting warmer. The thermometers show that the world is warmer now than at any time since the measurements started. The year 1990 was the hottest year in the last century. Together with 1991, the years of 1983, 1987, 1988, and 1989, have been measured to be the warmest 6 years in the last hundred years. 1991 was the second warmest year of the past century, perhaps due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo during that year. The ash from the volcano in the upper atmosphere blocks some sunlight to earth, and is expected to generate a temporary two or three year cooling effect. After that time, most ash particles will have settled back to earth, and most scientists expect to see the global warming trend continue.
According to scientists, we can with "99% confidence conclude that current temperatures represent a real warming trend rather than a chance fluctuation over the 30-year period." Most scientists agree that the planet's temperature has risen 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1900, and will continue to increase at an increasing rate. The environment is responding to this warming. For instance, a study of mountain plants in the Alps (Europe), shows that some cold-loving plants are starting to move to higher and cooler altitudes. That is a possible response to increasing temperatures.
CURRENT TRENDS.
The global effects of the greenhouse effect cannot be directly predicted simply because we do not have enough knowledge in the subject. However, we have been able to draw direct connections between certain natural phenomenon that supports the idea that something is changing.
Global warming has great effect on crops and weather conditions around the world. The northern hemisphere contains more land area than the southern hemisphere, and conversely, a lower percentage of the world's oceans. Since oceans absorb more heat than land areas, it is not surprising that most climate models predict faster heating over the northern hemisphere than the global average. In addition, models predict faster temperature increases at higher latitudes. If global warming trends continue, high temperatures everywhere in the US may reduce US agricultural productivity. Northern continental areas are projected to have drier summer soils, due in part to earlier snow melts in the spring, and hotter, more cloudless summers, causing extensive evaporation of ground moisture. In addition, if the inland areas of the northern hemisphere are expected to receive less moisture, then, lake and river levels will be lower. Some reports predict the level of the Great Lakes will drop between 2 and 8 feet. River flows in the western US may be very vulnerable to increase temperatures expected as result of the greenhouse effect.
When many people think of global warming, their first concern is the possible rise of sea levels. With a large number of the world's cities in coastal areas, this is a significant problem. There are two major causes of rising sea levels. First, extra water is produced when ice melts. Secondly, the natural expansion of sea water as it becomes warmer. The range of sea ice around both poles continues to shrink, as it melts. Even with the level of greenhouse gases present today, the earth may warm enough in the next 50 years or so to completely melt the sea ice located on the poles.
Damage from rising seas is very diverse. Buildings and roads close to the water could be flooded and they could suffer damage from hurricanes and tropical storms. "There are good physical reasons to suggest that more intense storms (hurricanes) could result from global warming." Warmer oceans cause more intense storms. Experts believe that global warming could increase the intensity of hurricanes by over 50 percent. Hurricane Andrew's devastation in 1992 set new records. According to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the 1990 season was the most active year on their records for combined Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes. Damage caused by future hurricanes to populated areas will be more severe since higher sea levels are predicted for the next century. In addition, as the sea rises, beach erosion takes place, particularly on steep banks. Wetlands are lost as sea levels rise. Another serious problem is the threat of salt water intruding into underground fresh water reserves in coastal areas.
In 1992, a report was published by the United Nations, which proposes that if CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue with present trends (which is the case), the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands will flood by the year 2100. Furthermore, the islands of the Maldives would completely disappear. This would happen if only a two foot increase in sea level occured.

Rate of climate warming.
since 2001 and the 10 warmGlobal surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred est years have all occurred since 1995.
An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data.
Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.
There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.
Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. Sea ice extent for September for 2007 was by far the lowest on record at 4.28 million square kilometers, eclipsing the previous record low sea ice extent by 23%. Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.
Are El Niños related to Global Warming?
El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is a major research question.
Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?
Examination of changes in climate extremes requires long-term daily or even hourly data sets which until recently have been scarce for many parts of the globe. However these data sets have become more widely available allowing research into changes in temperature and precipitation extremes on global and regional scales. Global changes in temperature extremes include decreases in the number of unusually cold days and nights and increases in the number of unusually warm days and nights. Other observed changes include lengthening of the growing season, and decreases in the number of frost days.
Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed. There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.
In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought.In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events. Even in areas such as eastern Asia, it has been found that extreme precipitation events have increased despite total precipitation remaining constant or even decreasing somewhat. This is related to a decrease in the frequency of precipitation in this region.
Many individual studies of various regions show that extra-tropical cyclone activity seems to have generally increased over the last half of the 20th century in the northern hemisphere, but decreased in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, hurricane activity in the Atlantic has shown an increase in number since 1970 with a peak in 2005. It is not clear whether these trends are multi-decadal fluctuations or part of a longer-term trend.

Rising of sea level by increasing global warming.
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used (high or low) projected sea-level rise is projected to be anywhere from 0.18 (low greenhouse gas increase) to 0.59 meters for the highest greenhouse gas increase scenario. However, this increase is due mainly to thermal expansion and contributions from melting alpine glaciers, and does not include any potential contributions from melting ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica. Larger increases cannot be excluded but our current understanding of ice sheet dynamics renders uncertainties too large to be able to assess the likelihood of large-scale melting of these ice sheets.

CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

2008-06-04T00:06:00.000-07:00

What causes global warming?
Many things cause global warming. One thing that causes global warming is electrical pollution. Electricity causes pollution in many ways, some worse than others. In most cases, fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. Fossil fuels are made of dead plants and animals. Some examples of fossil fuels are oil and petroleum. Many pollutants (chemicals that pollute the air, water, and land) are sent into the air when fossil fuels are burned. Some of these chemicals are called greenhouse gasses.
We use these sources of energy much more than the sources that give off less pollution. Petroleum, one of the sources of energy, is used a lot. It is used for transportation, making electricity, and making many other things. Although this source of energy gives off a lot of pollution, it is used for 38% of the United States’ energy.
Some other examples of using energy and polluting the air are:
Turning on a light
Watching T.V.
Listening to a stereo
Washing or drying clothes
Using a hair dryer
Riding in a car
Heating a meal in the microwave
Using an air conditioner
Playing a video game
Using a dish washer
When you do these things, you are causing more greenhouse gasses to be sent into the air. Greenhouse gasses are sent into the air because creating the electricity you use to do these things causes pollution. If you think of how many times a day you do these things, it’s a lot. You even have to add in how many other people do these things! That turns out to be a lot of pollutants going into the air a day because of people like us using electricity. The least amount of electricity you use, the better.
When we throw our garbage away, the garbage goes to landfills. Landfills are those big hills that you go by on an expressway that stink. They are full of garbage. The garbage is then sometimes burned. This sends an enormous amount of greenhouse gasses into the air and makes global warming worse.
Another thing that makes global warming worse is when people cut down trees. Trees and other plants collect carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide is the air that our body lets out when we breathe. With fewer trees, it is harder for people to breathe because there is more CO2 in the air, and we don’t breathe CO2, we breathe oxygen. Plants collect the CO2 that we breathe out, and they give back oxygen that we breathe in. With less trees and other plants, such as algae, there is less air for us, and more greenhouse gases are sent into the air. This means that it is very important to protect our trees to stop the greenhouse effect, and also so we can breathe and live.
This gas, CO2, collects light and heat (radiant energy), produced by the sun, and this makes the earth warmer. The heat and light from the sun is produced in the center of the sun. (The sun has layers just like the earth.)

Increment of the greenhouse gases.

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. 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. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

FOREST DESTRUCTION CREATS MORE HEAT:
Trees play a unique role in the global carbon cycle. They are the largest land-based natural mechanism for removing CO2 from the air. (CO2 is also removed by the oceans and ocean organisms.)
Trees are able to store a large amount of CO2 in their structures. An acre of forest will absorb about 10 times the CO2 amount absorbed by an acre of crop land or grassland. One tree absorbs about 13 pounds of CO2 per year, and each one acre of forest absorbs about 2.8 tons of CO2. However, when trees are burned, the carbon locked in the structure is released into the air in the form of CO2. Today, the shrinking world forests are not able to absorb all the CO2 created by human beings while burning fossil fuels. Everyday over 5500 acres of rain forest are destroyed, and over 50 million acres are destroyed every year. Global CO2 levels rise approximately 0.4 percent each year, to levels not experienced on this planet for millions of years. Planting more trees and reducing timber cuts world-wide will help restore the imbalance, and perhaps buy time as ways are found to reduce world greenhouse gas emissions.

POPULATION GROWTH CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING.
The intellectual powers that we enjoy has enabled us to make effective use of technology and thereby changed the environment. Technology is partly responsible for explosive population growth and responsible for the resulting damage to Earth's resources. The industrial revolution caused a rapid increase in the Population growth, as oil and gas fuels were exploited for our use. There is a clear link between the problems of global warming and overpopulation, as increases in CO2 levels follows growth in population. Presently, we have too many people on Earth, who are using technologies that are destructive for the Earth. We cannot continue to grow, and make use of limited natural resources.

Global Warming

2008-06-03T23:57:00.000-07:00

What is global warming?
Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises). It happens when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature. This hurts many people, animals, and plants. Many cannot take the change, so they die.
What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is when the temperature rises because the sun’s heat and light is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere. This is like when heat is trapped in a car. On a very hot day, the car gets hotter when it is out in the parking lot. This is because the heat and light from the sun can get into the car, by going through the windows, but it can’t get back out. This is what the greenhouse effect does to the earth. The heat and light can get through the atmosphere, but it can’t get out. As a result, the temperature rises.
The squiggle lines coming from the sun are visible light and the lines and arrows inside the car are infrared light.
The sun’s heat can get into the car through the windows but is then trapped. This makes what ever the place might be, a greenhouse, a car, a building, or the earth’s atmosphere, hotter.
Sometimes the temperature can change in a way that helps us. The greenhouse effect makes the earth appropriate for people to live on. Without it, the earth would be freezing, or on the other hand it would be burning hot. It would be freezing at night because the sun would be down. We would not get the sun’s heat and light to make the night somewhat warm. During the day, especially during the summer, it would be burning because the sun would be up with no atmosphere to filter it, so people, plants, and animals would be exposed to all the light and heat.
Although the greenhouse effect makes the earth able to have people living on it, if there gets to be too many gases, the earth can get unusually warmer, and many plants, animals, and people will die. They would die because there would be less food (plants like corn, wheat, and other vegetables and fruits). This would happen because the plants would not be able to take the heat. This would cause us to have less food to eat, but it would also limit the food that animals have. With less food, like grass, for the animals that we need to survive (like cows) we would even have less food. Gradually, people, plants, and animals would all die of hunger.
What are greenhouse gasses?
Greenhouse gasses are gasses are in the earth’s atmosphere that collect heat and light from the sun. With too many greenhouse gasses in the air, the earth’s atmosphere will trap too much heat and the earth will get too hot. As a result people, animals, and plants would die because the heat would be too strong.
What is global warming doing to the environment?
Global warming is affecting many parts of the world. Global warming makes the sea rise, and when the sea rises, the water covers many low land islands. This is a big problem for many of the plants, animals, and people on islands. The water covers the plants and causes some of them to die. When they die, the animals lose a source of food, along with their habitat. Although animals have a better ability to adapt to what happens than plants do, they may die also. When the plants and animals die, people lose two sources of food, plant food and animal food. They may also lose their homes. As a result, they would also have to leave the area or die. This would be called a break in the food chain, or a chain reaction, one thing happening that leads to another and so on. Affect on one causes the serious impact on other leading to the imbalance on the natural ecosystem.
The oceans are affected by global warming in other ways, as well. Many things that are happening to the ocean are linked to global warming. One thing that is happening is warm water, caused from global warming, is harming and killing algae in the ocean.
Algae is a producer that you can see floating on the top of the water. (A producer is something that makes food for other animals through photosynthesis, like grass.) This floating green algae is food to many consumers in the ocean. (A consumer is something that eats the producers.) One kind of a consumer is small fish. There are many others like crabs, some whales, and many other animals. Fewer algae is a problem because there is less food for us and many animals in the sea.
Global warming is doing many things to people as well as animals and plants. It is killing algae, but it is also destroying many huge forests. The pollution that causes global warming is linked to acid rain. Acid rain gradually destroys almost everything it touches. Global warming is also causing many more fires that wipe out whole forests. This happens because global warming can make the earth very hot. In forests, some plants and trees leaves can be so dry that they catch on fire.