• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

A lot of people claim global warming is a natural process, as if you look at charts of global temperatures over the last 1m years or so, it goes up and down by itself. In particular, many of my old archaeology lecturers believed that greenhouse gasses had pretty much no effect on global warming.

The decreasing ozone layer is probably a bigger concern than global warming (I realise they're all related...) since it's reducing the protection we get from the sun.
 
Even if global warmimg is a load of old rubbish in that we are not contributing to it in any way, there is still one thing that bothers me.

Carbon dioxide comes from burning carbon based stuff, one molecule of carbon combines with two of oxygen to make carbon dioxide, so more carbon dioxide has to mean less oxygen.

This is bad wherever you live.
 
Don't worry about the oxygen; that will only go down by a couple of percent at most. No worse than living at a few thousand feet altitude.

Carbon dioxide and sea-level change are the things to be concerned about;
and the rearrangement of ocean and atmospheric circulation.

I certainly expect a sea-level rise of a few metres before we finally get this stuff under control; so seriously do not think of buying any waterfront properties at this point in time.
 
Not For Those Of A Sensitive Dispostion

An unnatural disaster

· Global warming to kill off 1m species
· Scientists shocked by results of research
· 1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday January 8, 2004
The Guardian


Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world.

The sheer scale of the disaster facing the planet shocked those involved in the research. They estimate that more than 1 million species will be lost by 2050.

The results are described as "terrifying" by Chris Thomas, professor of conservation biology at Leeds University, who is lead author of the research from four continents published today in the magazine Nature.

Much of that loss - more than one in 10 of all plants and animals - is already irreversible because of the extra global warming gases already discharged into the atmosphere. But the scientists say that action to curb greenhouse gases now could save many more from the same fate.

...
Never mind, just keeping on putting a tiger in those tanks! :(
 
The great problem I have with global warming is that it is not a geologically unusual event; at the end of a glacial period, sea levels rise five to ten times as rapidly as the expected rise from anthropogenic global warming; similarly at the end of an interglacial sea levels fall nearly as rapidly as water is converted to ice.

The distribution of biomes and climatic regions changes rapidly during these periods as well; there have been many periods of extinction in the Quaternary, the last and worst being aggravated by efficient stone age Homo sapiens hunters.

If modern civilisation and the natural world (as modified by humanity)are sensitive to rapid climate shift then that is a problem.
However it is a problem to survive and adapt for all species when the climate changes drastically, which has happened at least four times in the last million years, and more drastically than the change expected from global warming.

Humanity has settled into cities, many near seas and floodplains; if we cant adapt to climate change then we deserve to fail.
 
One good volcanic eruption will solve global warming in a trice, and we're probably overdue in this area.;)
 
This has been known about for a while but it is really only in the last 6 months or so that has been discussed in the popular press (and the Independent):

Global warming will plunge Britain into new ice age 'within decades'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

25 January 2004

Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming, new research suggests.

A study, which is being taken seriously by top government scientists, has uncovered a change "of remarkable amplitude" in the circulation of the waters of the North Atlantic.

Similar events in pre-history are known to have caused sudden "flips" of the climate, bringing ice ages to northern Europe within a few decades. The development - described as "the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments", by the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which led the research - threatens to turn off the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe's weather mild.

If that happens, Britain and northern Europe are expected to switch abruptly to the climate of Labrador - which is on the same latitude - bringing a nightmare scenario where farmland turns to tundra and winter temperatures drop below -20C. The much-heralded cold snap predicted for the coming week would seem balmy by comparison.

A report by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme in Sweden - launched by Nobel prize-winner Professor Paul Crutzen and other top scientists - warned last week that pollution threatened to "trigger changes with catastrophic consequences" like these.

Scientists have long expected that global warming could, paradoxically, cause a devastating cooling in Europe by disrupting the Gulf Stream, which brings as much heat to Britain in winter as the sun does: the US National Academy of Sciences has even described such abrupt, dramatic changes as "likely". But until now it has been thought that this would be at least a century away.

The new research, by scientists at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Acquaculture Science at Lowestoft and Canada's Bedford Institute of Oceanography, as well as Woods Hole, indicates that this may already be beginning to happen.

Dr Ruth Curry, the study's lead scientist, says: "This has the potential to change the circulation of the ocean significantly in our lifetime. Northern Europe will likely experience a significant cooling."

Robert Gagosian, the director of Woods Hole, considered one of the world's leading oceanographic institutes, said: "We may be approaching a threshold that would shut down [the Gulf Stream] and cause abrupt climate changes.

"Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates." The scientists, who studied the composition of the waters of the Atlantic from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego, found that they have become "very much" saltier in the tropics and subtropics and "very much" fresher towards the poles over the past 50 years.

This is alarming because the Gulf Stream is driven by cold, very salty water sinking in the North Atlantic. This pulls warm surface waters northwards, forming the current.

The change is described as the "fingerprint" of global warming. As the world heats up, more water evaporates from the tropics and falls as rain in temperate and polar regions, making the warm waters saltier and the cold ones fresher. Melting polar ice adds more fresh water.

Ominously, the trend has accelerated since 1990, during which time the 10 hottest years on record have occurred. Many studies have shown that similar changes in the waters of the North Atlantic in geological time have often plunged Europe into an ice age, sometimes bringing the change in as little as a decade.

The National Academy of Sciences says that the jump occurs in the same way as "the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light". Once the switch has occurred the new, hostile climate, lasts for decades at least, and possibly centuries.

When the Gulf Stream abruptly turned off about 12,700 years ago, it brought about a 1,300-year cold period, known as the Younger Dryas. This froze Britain in continuous permafrost, drove summer temperatures down to 10C and winter ones to -20C, and brought icebergs as far south as Portugal. Europe could not sustain anything like its present population. Droughts struck across the globe, including in Asia, Africa and the American west, as the disruption of the Gulf Stream affected currents worldwide.

Some scientists say that this is the "worst-case scenario" and that the cooling may be less dramatic, with the world's climate "flickering" between colder and warmer states for several decades. But they add that, in practice, this would be almost as catastrophic for agriculture and civilisation.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=484490
 
Interesting about the Oceanic circulation system. I recently read an e-mail from a lady who has spent many years blue water sailing. In December she made passage from the Azores to Tobago. During this journey, which she has made many times, the yacht was hit by Southwest winds for several days. Not only that but the usual trade winds were much lighter than normal. For that passage, at that time of year SWesters are unheard of.
 
intaglio said:
Interesting about the Oceanic circulation system. I recently read an e-mail from a lady who has spent many years blue water sailing. In December she made passage from the Azores to Tobago. During this journey, which she has made many times, the yacht was hit by Southwest winds for several days. Not only that but the usual trade winds were much lighter than normal. For that passage, at that time of year SWesters are unheard of.
Remember, at the end of the last century, when scientists, New Agers and ravers all got excited by Mandelbrot and Julia sets and chaotic, unpredictable systems?

Soon, we will all get a chance to experience the unpredictability of a Chaotic System at first hand.
 
Sorry about the length of this post

There seems to have been a misunderstanding about my last post on this thread. In that post I reported that a seaman of many years experience had noticed a very unusual pattern of winds during a recent Atlantic passage. This seems to have been read as an uncritical support of the theory of global warming. I repeat it was a report of something unusual that might or might not have had a bearing on the idea that the climate is changing.

OK, so what are my thoughts on climate change?

I do not know whether humans are making the climate change; but neither do the supporters or opponents of this theory. The problem is that the climate is an immensely stable chaotic system.

The stability is shown by the ability of the system to take vast changes of input and still be broadly life supporting. Huge asteroids impacting have not affected the climate for more than 50 to 100 years. Year on year changes in the Sun's output have little effect. The chaotic nature is displayed by the pattern of ice ages, apparently triggered events not great enough to have left any record apart from that of the ice.

The fact that the climate is such a system leads to three conclusions.

Firstly; climate will change, it has done so for many megayears with or without the input of humanity.

Secondly; climate change can be sudden and extreme and if it is it will destroy many lives either directly or through the disruption of economies. (Note that the term economies is here used in it's broadest sense not just the monetary one.)

Thirdly; human inputs could be having an effect on the rapidity and extremity of the change.

So, humans effecting destructive climate change is not proven but possible. Given the possibility is it wise for us to continue in a manner which might cause immense harm?

My view is no, amending our ways will have very little effect except on the monetary economy and could save lives; in addition such alterations to our habits will have a significant effect upon biodiversity and quality of life.

Finally I had better say that I think that human activity is affecting the climate. This is an opinion only, based not on individual events but on the number of changes from a perceived (modal) average over time. Changes such as an increased frequency of hot summers; the gradual, but not constant, increase in the mean severity of hurricanes and typhoons; monsoon failures becoming more common; the increasing frequency of El Nino events and, relating back to my last post, changes in the pattern of trade winds.
 
BBCi 02/02/04

Earth 'shook off' ancient warming

UK scientists claim they now know how Earth recovered on its own from a sudden episode of severe global warming at the time of the dinosaurs.
Understanding what happened could help experts plan for the future impact of man-made global warming, experts say.

Rock erosion may have leached chemicals into the sea, where they combined with carbon dioxide, causing levels of the greenhouse gas to fall worldwide.

UK scientists report the details of their research in the journal Geology.

What we have learned from these rocks is how the Earth can, over a long time, combat global warming

Dr Anthony Cohen, Open University
About 180 million years ago, temperatures on Earth rapidly shot up by about 5 Celsius.

The cause is thought to have been a sudden release of huge amounts of methane from the sea bed. Methane is itself a greenhouse gas but it is short-lived.

However, it is easily oxidised to carbon dioxide (CO2) which lingers in the atmosphere for long periods of time.


Mass extinction

Plants and animals were affected by the sudden rise in atmospheric CO2. Scientists have found evidence of a marine mass extinction during this period that killed off 84% of bivalve shellfish.

Over a period of about 150,000 years, the Earth returned to normal and life continued flourishing. How this happened was a mystery, but now scientists from the Open University in Milton Keynes claim to have a possible answer.

"Our new evidence has shown that this warming caused the weathering of rocks on the Earth's surface to rapidly increase by at least 400%," said Dr Anthony Cohen, who led the research.

"This intense rock-weathering effectively put a brake on global warming through chemical reactions that consumed the atmosphere's extra carbon dioxide."

They discovered that the rock had been subjected to high rates of weathering facilitated by warm conditions during the Jurassic hot spell.


'Methane burp'

Weathering occurs through the action of rain. Although the researchers did not uncover direct evidence for increased precipitation, they believe there were no limitations on water during the period.

The warm conditions caused by the "methane burp" would have sped up the rate at which weathering occurred. This led to minerals such as calcium and magnesium eroding from rocks and pouring into the sea.

Calcium combined with CO2, for instance, would have caused the precipitation of calcium carbonate. This process of CO2 consumption would have lowered levels of the greenhouse gas on a global scale.

As CO2 levels fell, so did global temperatures.

"Global warming is affecting the climate today, but it's very difficult to predict what's going to happen," Dr Cohen told BBC News Online.

"The reason for doing these studies is that you get the whole history. If you learn what happened then, that can inform how you deal with [the same problem] in future."

Dr Cohen added that there are still vast reserves of carbon - possibly as much as 14,000 gigatons - locked up as methane ice in ocean sediments.

If global temperatures reach a critical point, it is possible they might suddenly be released into the atmosphere causing a similar event to the one that occurred during the Jurassic.

"What we have learned from these rocks is how the Earth can, over a long time, combat global warming. What we need to discover now is why and at what point it goes into combat mode, and precisely how long the conflict takes to resolve," he explained.

Dr Cohen and his colleagues based their results on studies of mudrock rich in organic material and collected near Whitby in North Yorkshire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3451787.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fossils reveal direct link between global warming and genetic diversity in wildlife
08 Sep 2004

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13045

For the first time, scientists have found a direct relationship between global warming and the evolution of contemporary wildlife. A research team led by Stanford University biologist Elizabeth A. Hadly published its findings in the Sept. 7 online edition of the journal PloS Biology.

"We think we know a lot about how animals might respond to global warming, but we really have very little idea about their actual genetic response to environmental change," said Hadly, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Stanford.

In the study, she and her colleagues conducted a genetic analysis of two species of rodents commonly found in Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park – the montane vole (Microtus montanus) and the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides). The researchers collected DNA from living animals and from the teeth of fossilized specimens whose remains were buried in Lamar Cave, a remote site near the northeast entrance to the park.

"The deposit in the cave is about nine yards deep and it took me seven years to excavate and identify the fossils," Hadly said. "It contains hundreds of thousands of bones and represents a continuous fossil record dating back 3,000 years. This timescale allows us to really investigate microevolution in a natural environment, the way you'd investigate it in a laboratory with something that has a much quicker generational timeline, such as bacteria or fruit flies."

Climate change and genetics

For the experiment, the research team compared DNA from voles and pocket gophers living near Lamar Cave with ancient DNA from fossilized rodents that inhabited the area at different times since 1000 B.C.

The researchers were particularly interested in animals that were alive during two recent climatic events – the Medieval Warm Period (850-1350 A.D.), when the Northern Hemisphere experienced a slight warming trend; and the Little Ice Age (1350-1950), when the hemisphere cooled.

Since voles and pocket gophers prefer relatively wet grasslands, the scientists expected to see a decline in the population of both species during the Medieval Warm Period when their habitats dried up, and an increase during the Little Ice Age when the climate was wetter.

That prediction was confirmed by an analysis of fossil abundance in Lamar Cave, which revealed a 40 percent drop in the vole population during the warmer period, along with a 50 percent decline in the number of pocket gophers. As expected, fossil abundance for both species rose dramatically during the Little Ice Age as precipitation levels increased.

These findings established a direct correlation between climate change and population size, but how did individual voles and pocket gophers respond genetically to these episodes of global warming and cooling?

Earlier studies have shown that, when an isolated population shrinks, inbreeding increases. As a result, surviving offspring end up with similar DNA. Over time, this lack of genetic diversity can jeopardize the entire population, because each individual inherits the same vulnerability to diseases and other external threats.

"When you decrease population size, you have the potential of eliminating much genetic diversity," Hadly explained. "That's what happened to pocket gophers during the Medieval Warm Period. We found that they underwent a population size reduction and a decline in genetic diversity, which is what you would predict."

But voles had a different response to medieval warming. "They didn't show any reduction in genetic diversity, even though they did show a reduction in population size," Hadly said. That's because voles routinely look for mates from other colonies.

"Voles move around," Hadly noted. "They disperse quite freely, and that actually results in an elevation of genetic diversity during the time that their population sizes are undergoing reduction. Pocket gophers, on the other hand, are subterranean rodents. They dig underground burrows that are very energetically expensive to build, and they kind of stick in one place."

Subtle message

These results have important implications for wildlife biology and conservation, Hadly observed.

"There's a subtle message in this paper about the potential influence of warming on evolution," she said. "Voles show an influx of new genes and genetic diversity as their population declines, which means they're connected to other populations. But gophers haven't really recovered from the Medieval Warm Period, which ended less than 1,000 years ago. That means gophers are not getting any fresh, new genes from somewhere outside because they're isolated."

While previous studies have shown that interbreeding usually occurs among large populations of animals, "this study shows that gene flow is occurring when population sizes are low," Hadly said. "So the snapshot we have today about how populations are connected may not be how it actually persists through time."

The study also has implications for wildlife managers in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem who are trying to maintain genetically diverse populations of elk, bison and other mammals.

"The landscape of Yellowstone – arguably one of the largest relatively intact temperate zone ecosystems in the world – is really chopped up and isolated, and there are fewer connections between populations," Hadly explained. "They really might not have anyplace to go because of development or habitat loss, and this has the potential to be exacerbated during global warming."

She noted that the methods developed for the study offer wildlife biologists a unique approach to understanding the long-range effects of climate change on genetics.

"In looking at wild organisms in nature, I don't really know of another study like this," she said. "No one has really looked specifically at how the environment has influenced genes over a 3,000-year timescale. And our expectation is that other species will also show genetic responses to warming. Whether these effects are reversible may have to do with life history and how connected populations are, and for many species that remains to be seen."

Other co-authors of the PloS Biology study are Stanford postdoctoral fellows Uma Ramakrishnan and Marcel van Tuinen; Stanford graduate students Yvonne L. Chan, Kim O'Keefe and Paula A. Spaeth; and Chris J. Conroy of the University of California-Berkeley. The study was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

By Mark Shwartz
News Service website:
http://www.stanford.edu/news

Stanford Report (university newspaper):
http://news.stanford.edu

Most recent news releases from Stanford:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/html/releases.html

To change contact information for these news releases:
[email protected]
Phone: 650-723-2558

CONTACT: Mark Shwartz, News Service: 650-723-9296, [email protected]
COMMENT: Elizabeth Hadly, Department of Biological Sciences: 650-725-2655,
[email protected]

EDITORS: The study, "Genetic Response to Climatic Change: Insights from Ancient DNA and Phylochronology," is posted on the PloS Biology website at http://www.plosbiology.org.

Relevant Web URLs:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab

http://www.nps.gov/yell

http://www.plosbiology.org
 
What's all that got to do with pole reversal...?
 
Good point - I was wondering myself ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well

If the axis of the planet is tilting over (North Pole going down and South Pole coming up)then that would affect the weather pattens greatly on the surface of the planet, don't you think?
Bill.
 
Bill,
The axis isn't tilting (apart from its usual wobble), it's the magnetic field that's moving. The Earth continues to spin as till has for eons. If the axis was moving it'd be a lot more than weather patterns that would be changing.
 
Yep, the Earth won't physically tilt over on it's axis.
 
OK

I undestands both your points of view.to coyn a fraze;;;there is more to this than meets the eye;;;
Thanks
Billo.
 
from Reuters

Some of Antarctica's glaciers are melting faster than snow can replace them, enough to raise sea levels measurably, scientists have reported.

Measurements of glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea, on the Pacific Ocean side of Antarctica, show they are melting much faster than in recent years and could break up.

And they contain more ice than was previously estimated, meaning they could raise sea level by more than predicted, the international team of researchers writes in the journal Science.

"The ... Amundsen Sea glaciers contain enough ice to raise sea level by 1.3 meters (4 feet)," the researchers wrote in their report on Friday.

"Our measurements show them collectively to be 60 percent out of balance, sufficient to raise sea level by 0.24 mm (nearly 0.01 inch) per year," they added.

And as the surrounding ice shelves melt -- which they are doing -- this process will speed up, the researchers said.

"The ice shelves act like a cork and slow down the flow of the glacier," said Bob Thomas of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.

Theirs is the second report this week to warn of rapidly melting glaciers in Antarctica.

On Tuesday a team at NASA and the University of Colorado reported that the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf on the other side of the continent had accelerated the breakup of glaciers into the Weddell Sea.

Many teams of researchers are keeping a close eye on parts of Antarctica that are steadily melting.

....
 
Natures' Revenge oh Haiti

I understand the reason for the severe floods in Haiti is due to the severe deforestation of the island.

Humans murders hundreds of trees and as a consequence hundreds of humans die. It almost sounds fair.

This level of flooding during tropical storms will now be an ongoing risk until flood defences can be set up (replacing the trees should do it).

I bet they still have not got the message :rolleyes:
 
Interesting point

We should never forget that the planet we live on and it.s surroundings(the Universe)will allways have the last say in the matters of the human race,we are just guests here.
Bill.
 
The beginning of the end, or storm in a teacup?

October 2, 2004


Faster ocean currents - not global warming - could be behind the storms, floods and fires, writes Melissa Fyfe.

A record-breaking spate of hurricanes hitting Florida, a string of deadly typhoons in Japan, Arctic ice melting, Antarctic glaciers moving, heatwaves, floods - the world has, it seems, gone mad.

When nature unleashes her temper, we want to know why. But the answer, as always, is not clear-cut. The planet moves in mysterious ways.

Blaming global warming for polar ice melting is one thing, but the world's climate scientists will not connect it to the recent hurricanes that whipped the Caribbean with unprecedented frequency.

There are simply too many forces at play and not enough long-term data, they say.

But a key factor, scientists believe, was the build-up of warm water in the Atlantic in the past year, about five degrees higher than recent averages.

US meteorologists have said the ocean conveyor belt that ferries warm water around the globe is probably to blame for the spate of hurricanes.

Scientists have discovered that every two or three decades this massive ocean current picks up speed, warming water in the tropics. This in turn changes atmospheric conditions around Africa, where many major storms begin.
Advertisement Advertisement

Climatologist Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, said five factors controlled the magnitude and frequency of tropical cyclones. They included the thickness of the atmosphere, how strong winds were at the top of a storm and the temperature of the upper 200 metres of the ocean.

"We have no idea how global warming is going to affect four out of five of these factors, but we are sure it is going to increase ocean temperatures," he said.

"The warmer the water, the more the energy."

In the future, this could be true of tropical cyclones in Australia's north, Professor Schneider said. "Maybe you won't have stronger storms every year, but when you do get a doozy, it is going to be a big one."

This year has been one of extreme weather, and scientists - particularly climate scientists, atmospheric chemists and oceanographers - are warning that the kind of extreme weather that happened once in 100 years could soon take place every 20 years.

Last month, British scientist Mike Pilling, a professor of physical chemistry at Leeds University, said millions of people could die due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.

Professor Pilling cited the European heatwave and increased atmospheric pollution that killed 35,000 in Europe in 2003. Scientists have found global warming has also pushed up temperatures at night, providing no relief during heatwaves.

Last year, the Red Cross estimated that up to 700 natural disasters took 50,000 lives, almost five times as many as 2002. In 2003, the United Nations reported that climate-related impacts cost the world $US602 billion ($A83 billion) 10 per cent more than in 2002.

The insurance business is one of the most vocal supporters for action on climate change. Australia's biggest insurance group, IAG, has done the figures on the cost of climate-related disasters - such as the Sydney hailstorm of 1999 that caused
The beginning of the end, or storm in a teacup?

October 2, 2004


Faster ocean currents - not global warming - could be behind the storms, floods and fires, writes Melissa Fyfe.

A record-breaking spate of hurricanes hitting Florida, a string of deadly typhoons in Japan, Arctic ice melting, Antarctic glaciers moving, heatwaves, floods - the world has, it seems, gone mad.

When nature unleashes her temper, we want to know why. But the answer, as always, is not clear-cut. The planet moves in mysterious ways.

Blaming global warming for polar ice melting is one thing, but the world's climate scientists will not connect it to the recent hurricanes that whipped the Caribbean with unprecedented frequency.

There are simply too many forces at play and not enough long-term data, they say.

But a key factor, scientists believe, was the build-up of warm water in the Atlantic in the past year, about five degrees higher than recent averages.

US meteorologists have said the ocean conveyor belt that ferries warm water around the globe is probably to blame for the spate of hurricanes.

Scientists have discovered that every two or three decades this massive ocean current picks up speed, warming water in the tropics. This in turn changes atmospheric conditions around Africa, where many major storms begin.
Advertisement Advertisement

Climatologist Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, said five factors controlled the magnitude and frequency of tropical cyclones. They included the thickness of the atmosphere, how strong winds were at the top of a storm and the temperature of the upper 200 metres of the ocean.

"We have no idea how global warming is going to affect four out of five of these factors, but we are sure it is going to increase ocean temperatures," he said.

"The warmer the water, the more the energy."

In the future, this could be true of tropical cyclones in Australia's north, Professor Schneider said. "Maybe you won't have stronger storms every year, but when you do get a doozy, it is going to be a big one."

This year has been one of extreme weather, and scientists - particularly climate scientists, atmospheric chemists and oceanographers - are warning that the kind of extreme weather that happened once in 100 years could soon take place every 20 years.

Last month, British scientist Mike Pilling, a professor of physical chemistry at Leeds University, said millions of people could die due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.

Professor Pilling cited the European heatwave and increased atmospheric pollution that killed 35,000 in Europe in 2003. Scientists have found global warming has also pushed up temperatures at night, providing no relief during heatwaves.

Last year, the Red Cross estimated that up to 700 natural disasters took 50,000 lives, almost five times as many as 2002. In 2003, the United Nations reported that climate-related impacts cost the world $US602 billion ($A83 billion) 10 per cent more than in 2002.

The insurance business is one of the most vocal supporters for action on climate change. Australia's biggest insurance group, IAG, has done the figures on the cost of climate-related disasters - such as the Sydney hailstorm of 1999 that caused $1.7 billion damage in minutes - and is calling for action.

Its modelling suggests that small changes to ocean temperature could create a "megastorm" that would dwarf the Sydney hailstorm.

"Global warming leads to increased severe weather-related events," IAG's chief actuary, Tony Coleman, said. "It manifests itself with more damage to buildings and cars, which leads to more claims, which is why the insurance industry is concerned."

While conditions here might not be as spectacular as hurricanes and typhoons, Australia is still experiencing some of its own severe weather. Severe rainfall deficiencies still persist on Australia's east coast from Proserpine in Queensland to Bega in southern NSW. And it's been unusually warm: last month NSW experienced record high temperatures for September.

Neil Plummer, acting superintendent of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, said there have been trends towards an El Nino event for the past few months, but it is too early to call. Nevertheless, it looks like the next three months will be warmer and drier than average in parts of eastern Australia.

THE WEATHER WITH YOU

· So far this year four hurricanes have hit Florida, the most since records began in 1851. The storms have caused damage worth an estimated $US12.2 billion ($A17 billion) including the house below, destroyed by hurricane Charley.

· This week's typhoon Meari left 20 people dead in Japan. Meari was the season's 21st typhoon in the Pacific and a record eighth to hit Japan.

· Antarctica's glaciers are accelerating their march towards the sea. A 3200-square-kilometre section of the Larson B iceshelf broke off over a month in 2002. The collapse was captured in these satellite images, right.

· Australia is still experiencing "severe rainfall deficiencies" on the east coast.

· 2004 has seen major fires in France, California and Greece and severe floods in Bangladesh, Nepal and India.
.7 billion damage in minutes - and is calling for action.

Its modelling suggests that small changes to ocean temperature could create a "megastorm" that would dwarf the Sydney hailstorm.

"Global warming leads to increased severe weather-related events," IAG's chief actuary, Tony Coleman, said. "It manifests itself with more damage to buildings and cars, which leads to more claims, which is why the insurance industry is concerned."

While conditions here might not be as spectacular as hurricanes and typhoons, Australia is still experiencing some of its own severe weather. Severe rainfall deficiencies still persist on Australia's east coast from Proserpine in Queensland to Bega in southern NSW. And it's been unusually warm: last month NSW experienced record high temperatures for September.

Neil Plummer, acting superintendent of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, said there have been trends towards an El Nino event for the past few months, but it is too early to call. Nevertheless, it looks like the next three months will be warmer and drier than average in parts of eastern Australia.

THE WEATHER WITH YOU

· So far this year four hurricanes have hit Florida, the most since records began in 1851. The storms have caused damage worth an estimated $US12.2 billion ($A17 billion) including the house below, destroyed by hurricane Charley.

· This week's typhoon Meari left 20 people dead in Japan. Meari was the season's 21st typhoon in the Pacific and a record eighth to hit Japan.

· Antarctica's glaciers are accelerating their march towards the sea. A 3200-square-kilometre section of the Larson B iceshelf broke off over a month in 2002. The collapse was captured in these satellite images, right.

· Australia is still experiencing "severe rainfall deficiencies" on the east coast.

· 2004 has seen major fires in France, California and Greece and severe floods in Bangladesh, Nepal and India.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527935022.html?oneclick=true
 
New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: October 5, 2004

A new analysis has challenged the accuracy of a climate timeline showing that recent global warming is unmatched for a thousand years.

That timeline, generated by stitching together hints of past temperatures embedded in tree rings, corals, ice layers and other sources, is one strut supporting the widely accepted view that the current warm spell is being caused mainly by accumulating heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions.

The authors of the study, published in the current issue of the online journal ScienceExpress, said they did not dispute that a sharp warming was under way and that its pace could signal a human influence. But they said their test of the methods used to mesh recent temperature records with centuries-old evidence showed that past natural climate shifts were most likely sharply underestimated.

Many climate scientists credited the new study with pointing out how much uncertainty still surrounds efforts to turn nature's spotty, unwritten temperature records into a climate chronology.

An accompanying commentary in ScienceExpress, by Dr. Timothy J. Osborn and Dr. Keith R. Briffa, scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain, said it implied that "the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as 'unusual' would need to be reassessed."

But many experts stressed that the new analysis did not undercut confidence that humans were the main cause of warming now - a conclusion based on a host of evidence trails, including ocean warming and accelerating melting of glaciers.

Indeed, Dr. Briffa and Dr. Osborn wrote that if past climate swings were bigger than they appeared, this could mean the earth's climate system might be more sensitive to external influences like shifts in the sun's output or the concentration of greenhouse gases than scientists had estimated. They said that might mean that future warming from human activities could be greater than had so far been projected.

The lead author of the new study, Dr. Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS research center, disagreed, saying his conclusion was simply that the old method of integrating climate clues from beyond a century ago was flawed.

The significance of the new analysis comes partly because the record it challenges is a central icon in the debate over whether heat-trapping emissions should be curbed. The hallmark of the original method is a graph widely called the "hockey stick" because of its shape: a long, relatively unwavering line crossing the last millennium and then a sharp, upward-turning "blade" of warming over the last century.

The new study essentially says the shaft of the stick could well be profoundly warped and the old statistical method would not notice.

The original climate reconstruction emerged in the late 1990's as scientists took scattered indirect hints of past conditions, like variations in tree rings, and built an overall estimate. The researchers then merged the record of past centuries with the much more precisely captured climate history of the last 100 years. They used statistical formulas to account for the greater uncertainty in the older records and showed this in the resulting curve by including broadening gray zones on both sides of the graph's center line.

To test this method, the new study undertook a climate deconstruction instead of a reconstruction. The researchers used two different computer simulations of global climate to create alternate thousand-year climate histories - essentially global maps showing temperature trends on a greatly simplified planet.

Working backward, they created temperature archives for particular places, each representing one of the real tree-ring or coral records. They then used the same methods that had generated the hockey stick curve and tried to regenerate the computer-generated climate records.

In each case, Dr. von Storch said, the method nicely reproduced the last 100 years but sharply underestimated big century-long warm and cool spikes further back in time.

Several authors of the existing climate history said they had always acknowledged the unavoidable uncertainties. They also questioned some techniques used in the new analysis. Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climate expert at the University of Virginia and the lead author of the studies that generated the hockey stick, said, for example, that the virtual climate created by Dr. von Storch's team had far greater past variations in the sun's output than what experts feel really happened.

But many climate sleuths acknowledged that while the broad climate trends were clear, much remained uncertain.

"I don't think anyone in the field would doubt we may be underestimating" some past climate shifts, said Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts climate expert and co-author of Dr. Mann's. "For the general point von Storch is making," he added, "fair enough."

Requires (free) registration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/science/earth/05clim.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login
 
Climate fear as carbon levels soar

Hi

more..

source:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1324379,00.html
Monday October 11, 2004
The Guardian

quote:
----------------------------------
Climate fear as carbon levels soar

Scientists bewildered by sharp rise of CO2 in atmosphere for second year running

Paul Brown, environment correspondent


An unexplained and unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere two years running has raised fears that the world may be on the brink of runaway
global warming.Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no
longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

The findings will be discussed tomorrow by the government's chief scientist, Dr
David King, at the annual Greenpeace business lecture.

Measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere have been continuous for almost 50 years at Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, regarded as far enough away from any carbon dioxide source to be a reliable measuring point.

In recent decades CO2 increased on average by 1.5 parts per million (ppm) a year because of the amount of oil, coal and gas burnt, but has now jumped to more than 2 ppm in 2002 and 2003.

Above or below average rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been explained in the past by natural events.

When the Pacific warms up during El Niño - a disruptive weather pattern caused by weakening trade winds - the amount of carbon dioxide rises dramatically because warm oceans emit CO2 rather than absorb it.

But scientists are puzzled because over the past two years, when the increases
have been 2.08 ppm and 2.54 ppm respectively, there has been no El Niño.

Charles Keeling, the man who began the observations in 1958 as a young climate scientist, is now 74 and still working in the field.

He said yesterday: "The rise in the annual rate to above two parts per million for two consecutive years is a real phenomenon.

"It is possible that this is merely a reflection of natural events like previous peaks in the rate, but it is also possible that it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in the record."

Analysts stress that it is too early to draw any long-term conclusions.

But the fear held by some scientists is that the greater than normal rises in
C02 emissions mean that instead of decades to bring global warming under control we may have only a few years. At worst, the figures could be the first sign of the breakdown in the Earth's natural systems for absorbing the gas.

That would herald the so-called "runaway greenhouse effect", where the planet's soaring temperature becomes impossible to contain. As the icecaps melt, less sunlight is refected back into space from ice and snow, and bare rocks begin to absorb more heat. This is already happening.

One of the predictions made by climate scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that as the Earth warms, the absorption of carbon dioxide by vegetation - known as "carbon sink" - is reduced.

Dr Keeling said since there was no sign of a dramatic increase in the amount of
fossil fuels being burnt in 2002 and 2003, the rise "could be a weakening of the Earth's carbon sinks, associated with the world warming, as part of a climate change feedback mechanism. It is a cause for concern'.'

Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, and a former special adviser to the former Tory environment minister John Gummer, warned: "We're watching the clock and the clock is beginning to tick faster, like it seems to before a bomb goes off."

Peter Cox, head of the Carbon Cycle Group at the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change, said the increase in carbon dioxide was not uniform across the globe.

Measurements of CO2 levels in Australia and at the south pole were slightly lower, he said, so it looked as though something unusual had occurred in the northern hemisphere.

"My guess is that there were extra forest fires in the northern hemisphere, and particularly a very hot summer in Europe," Dr Cox said. "This led to a die-back in vegetation and an increase in release of carbon from the soil, rather than more growing plants taking carbon out of the atmosphere, which is usually the case in summer."

Scientists are have dubbed the two-year CO2 rise the Mauna Loa anomaly. Dr Cox said one of its most interesting aspects was that the CO2 rises did not take place in El Niño years. Previously the only figures that climbed higher than 2 ppm were El Niño years - 1973, 1988, 1994 and 1998.

The heatwave of last year that is now believed to have claimed at least 30,000 lives across the world was so out of the ordinary that many scientists believe it could only have been caused by global warming.

But Dr Cox, like other scientists, is concerned that too much might be read into two years' figures. "Five or six years on the trot would be very difficult to explain," he said.

Dr Piers Forster, senior research fellow of the University of Reading's
Department of Meteorology, said: "If this is a rate change, of course it will be
very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all
our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be
redone."

David J Hofmann of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
centre, which also studies CO2, was more cautious.

"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.

"Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."
 
from the new scientist:

New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.

The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is a good way to clean up the atmosphere.

When fossil fuels used in industry and automobiles fail to combust completely, they generate VOCs, which react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form poisonous ozone in the lower atmosphere. In the past few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.

But trees also produce VOCs, which tend to be ignored by scientists modelling the effects of ozone on pollution. So a team led by Drew Purves at Princeton University investigated the impact of newly planted forests on VOC levels in the US.

The researchers used the US Forest Service Industry Analysis, a database of 250,000 randomly sampled forest plots around the country, and the known VOC emission rate for each tree species for the study.

They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s – equivalent to three times the industrial reductions.

Farmland reverting to scrub, pine plantations and the invasive sweetgum tree were behind most of the increases in the US.
 
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Makes you wonder how the world survived before humans came along and started cutting the trees down.
 
another story from the New Scientist website

Arctic warming at twice global rate

17:58 02 November 04

NewScientist.com news service


Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious consequences for the planet.

These include substantial rises in sea level and an intensification of global warming via a positive feedback mechanism, although there may also be benefits. The four-year scientific assessment was conducted by an international team of 300 researchers for the Arctic Council, which is comprised of the eight nations - including the US - with Arctic territories.

“The projections for the future show a two to three times higher warming rate than for the rest of the world,” says Pål Prestrud, vice-chairman of the steering committee for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report. “That will have consequences for the physical, ecological and human systems.”

“The big melt has begun,” says Jennifer Morgan, climate change director of the campaign group WWF. “Industrialised countries are carrying out an uncontrolled experiment to study the effects of climate change and the Arctic is their first guinea pig. This is unethical and wrong. They must cut emissions of CO2 now.”


Summer melt

The Arctic will lose 50% to 60% of its ice distribution by 2100, according to the average of five climate models run by the scientists. One of the five models predicts that by 2070, the Artic will be so warm it will no longer have any ice in the summer.

Prestrud told New Scientist that the report draws on models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its predictions. It has based the Arctic projections on the IPCC’s “middle scenario”, where global warming gas emissions are double their pre-industrial level. In this scenario, sea level will rise between 10 and 90 centimetres in this century, he says.

The Arctic had been predicted to be hit first by global warming, principally because warming at the northern pole is enhanced by positive feedback.

Snow and ice reflect 80% to 90% of solar radiation back into space. But when these white surfaces disappear, more solar radiation is absorbed by the underlying land or sea as heat. This heat, in turn, melts more snow and ice.

Another reason for the Arctic’s sensitivity is that the air there is extremely dry compared to air at lower latitudes, says Prestrud. This means that less energy is used up in evaporating water, leaving more as heat.


Value judgment
A warmer Arctic may have many consequences. “It’s a value judgment. For the oil industry it will be an advantage if the ice disappears, increasing access to oil and gas reserves,” notes Prestrud. He says that about 25% of the Earth’s remaining reserves are in the Arctic.

great, so they can get to the oil easier to provide fuel for more SUV's to drive on the roads, assuming the roads aren't flooded :nonplus:
 
Very interesting piece in New Scientist about the effect of large windfarms on their microclimate. Makes you think.

Wind farms can change the weather, according to a model of how these forests of giant turbines interact with the local atmosphere. And the idea is backed up by observations from real wind farms.

Somnath Baidya Roy from Princeton University, and his colleagues modelled a hypothetical wind farm consisting of a 100 by 100 array of wind turbines, each 100 metres tall and set 1 kilometre apart.

They placed the virtual farm in the Great Plains region of the US, an area suitable for large wind farms, and modelled the climate using data from Oklahoma.

During the day, the model suggests that wind farms have very little effect on the climate because the warmth of the sun mixes the lower layers of the atmosphere. But at night, when the atmosphere is stiller, the wind turbines have a significant effect.

“At hub height the turbine gives an extra input of turbulence to the wind, which increases the vertical mixing,” explains Baidya Roy. This brings down to ground level the warm night air and higher wind speeds that are normally found at 100 metres.

At 3 am the average wind speed in Oklahoma is 3.5 metres per second, but it increased to around 5 m/s in the model wind farm. The model also suggested that the temperature would increase by around 2°C underneath the 10,000 turbines. Over the course of a day this averages out to an increase in ground-level wind speed of around 0.6 m/s and a rise in temperature of around 0.7°C.

How such a change might affect local wildlife and agriculture is not clear.

The findings are backed by real observations. Neil Kelley, a meteorologist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, has gathered data from a wind farm in California.

“Although the wind farm was more dense and the turbines smaller we still found that the turbines tended to pull down heat and momentum from above, particularly during the night-time hours,” he says.

Meanwhile, Gustave Corten from the Energy Research Centre in Petten in the Netherlands is carrying out experiments with a model wind farm inside a wind tunnel. “I think the study is of much interest and I can confirm that large wind farms will affect the microclimate,” says Corten.

Baidya Roy says it may be possible to modify the wind turbines so that their effect on the weather is not so extreme. “If engineers can reduce turbulence then the turbine would become more efficient and the environmental impact would be reduced,” he says.

But no amount of engineering will change the fact that energy is being removed from the wind. “People tend to think that renewable energy is for free, but it isn’t. There is a price to pay for all kinds of consumption, including renewable energy,” says Baidya Roy.
 
Min Bannister said:
Very interesting piece in New Scientist about the effect of large windfarms on their microclimate. Makes you think.

If large wind farms reduce the amount of energy in the atmosphere then would they not also reduce the likelyhood of storms occuring? Could they make tornados less likely in the mid-west, or help reduce global warming even?
 
Back
Top