Over the past 30 years, a number of satellite missions have been launched to obtain the data about Earth's radiation budget that are critical to understanding the greenhouse effect. Some of these missions are listed in the accompanying table.
Another very important aspect of greenhouse investigations has been the development of models. A number of climate models have been developed by NASA, and one of the most detailed is a General Circulation Model (GCM) developed by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. A GCM uses extremely high speed computers to solve the basic equations governing atmospheric motions and processes by numerical techniques. The GISS group, using its model, predicted that the annual global temperature would reach a new record high sometime during the first three years of the 1990's. Indeed, that record was reached in 1990. However, in June 1991, the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted and sent 25 to 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. There, the sulfur dioxide reacted with water vapor to produce a long lasting haze of sulfuric acid droplets.
The GISS group then inserted the new information into the model, estimated how much sunlight the Pinatubo aerosol cloud would block, and predicted that the global temperature would drop about 0.3 degree C. Again, the predicted change actually occurred. Although these successful climate predictions are encouraging, most scientists agree that much remains to be done to improve climate models before we will be able to predict future climate in a credible manner.
An important need in the further development and verification of climate models is the acquisition, assembly, and analysis of reliable climate data. The highly accurate, self consistent, and long term data sets that will be acquired by the Earth Observing System (EOS), as part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth with a series of satellite launches beginning in 1998, are designed to fulfill that need.
NASA Investigations of the Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse Gases - NASA
To predict climate change, one must model the climate. One test of the validity of predictions is the ability of the climate models to reproduce the climate as we see it today. Elements of the models such as the physics and chemistry of the processes that we know or think we know are essential to represent in the models. Therefore, the models have to embody the characteristics of the land and the oceans that serve as boundaries of the atmosphere represented in the models. Models also have to take into account the radiative characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere, including the key radiative gas, water vapor, that is so variable throughout the atmosphere.
Global records of surface temperature over the last 100 years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5 degrees C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come. For example, in the early 1970's, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.
The major gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are transparent to both the radiation incoming from the sun and the radiation outgoing from the Earth, so they have little or no effect on the greenhouse warming. The gases that are not transparent are water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These are the greenhouse gases.
There has been about a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 270 or 280 parts per million 250 years ago, to approximately 350 parts per million today. The record of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows a variation as seasons change. This variation is more pronounced in the northern hemisphere, with its greater land area, than in the southern hemisphere because of interactions in the atmosphere caused by vegetation. In the growing season, during daylight vegetation takes in carbon dioxide; at night and in the senescent season, vegetation releases carbon dioxide. The effect is more pronounced in the northern hemisphere because most of the land on Earth is located there.
Global Climate Change
The prediction of climate change due to human activities began with a prediction made by the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, in 1896. Arrhenius took note of the industrial revolution then getting underway and realized that the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere was increasing. Moreover, he believed carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to increase as the world's consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal, increased ever more rapidly. His understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in heating Earth, even at that early date, led him to predict that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled, Earth would become several degrees warmer. However, little attention was paid to what must have been seen to be a rather far-out prediction that had no apparent consequence for people living at that time.
Arrhenius was referring to a potential modification of what we now call the greenhouse effect. A simplified explanation of this is as follows (see the diagram). Shortwave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded, but longwave infrared radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is absorbed partially and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases--particularly water vapor and carbon dioxide--in the cooler atmosphere above. Because, on average, the outgoing infrared radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both the atmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the greenhouse gases. One should distinguish between the "natural" and a possible "enhanced" greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect causes the mean temperature of the Earth's surface to be about 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if natural greenhouse gases were not present. This is fortunate for the natural greenhouse effect creates a climate in which life can thrive and man can live under relatively benign conditions. Otherwise, the Earth would be a very frigid and inhospitable place. On the other hand, an enhanced greenhouse effect refers to the possible raising of the mean temperature of the Earth's surface above that occurring due to the natural greenhouse effect because of an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases due to human activities. Such a global warming would probably bring other, sometimes deleterious, changes in climate; for example, changes in precipitation, storm patterns, and the level of the oceans. The word "enhanced" is usually omitted, but it should not be forgotten in discussions of the greenhouse effect.
Nearly 100 years after the Arrhenius prediction, we are now aware that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, with the likelihood that it will double by the middle of the next century from the levels at the time of Arrhenius. Post-World War II industrialization has caused a dramatic jump in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As the prospect of considerable change in the atmosphere becomes more real and threatening, new computer models are being applied to the problem. These models take into account the natural processes that must be part of the whole picture to understand what could happen to Earth's climate as carbon dioxide increases. An important aspect of the newer models is their treatment of the "amplifier" or feedback effect, in which further changes in the atmosphere occur in response to the warming initiated by the change in carbon dioxide.
In addition to moisture and cloud processes, the newer models are beginning to take into account the role of vegetation, forests, grasslands, and crops in controlling the amount of carbon dioxide that actually will be in the atmosphere. Along with their role as "sinks" for carbon dioxide, the various types of vegetation in the biosphere have further effects on climate. Plants heat or cool the air around them (through the reflection and absorption of solar radiation and the evaporation process), remove momentum from surface winds, and take up and release moisture into the air (thus contributing to alterations in the hydrologic cycle). In turn, changes in climate will affect the patterns of vegetation growth. For instance, forest stands that require relatively cool conditions may not be able to adjust to the relatively rapid warming that is being predicted for the interiors of climates. With slow warming, scientists expect that the northern edges of North American forests would creep slowly forward to more-favorable conditions, while the southern edges would give way to grasslands that are better suited to the warmer conditions. With overly rapid warming rates, however, the loss at the southern edge would be more extreme, and the migration at the northern edges would not be able to make up for the loss at the southern edge.
Other feedback effects at work also must be considered. In normal conditions, plant leaves take in carbon dioxide from the air and release moisture to the air as part of the photosynthesis process. The release of moisture through evapotranspiration causes the air to cool. With increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, one can expect to see a change in plant carbon exchange rates and water relations. This may result in reduced evaporation rates, thus amplifying the summer continental warming. Without plants, the ground and air would become warmer, exacerbating the problem.
Canadian Ice Shelf Loses 7 Square Mile Section
EDMONTON, Alberta. A chunk of ice spreading across seven square miles has broken off a Canadian ice shelf in the Arctic, scientists said Tuesday. Derek Mueller, a research at Trent University, was careful not to blame global warming, but said it the event was consistent with the theory that the current Arctic climate isn't rebuilding ice sheets.
"We're in a different climate now," he said. "It's not conducive to regrowing them. It's a one-way process."
Mueller said the sheet broke away last week from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf off the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's far north. He said a crack in the shelf was first spotted in 2002 and a survey this spring found a network of fissures.
The sheet is the biggest piece shed by one of Canada's six ice shelves since the Ayles shelf broke loose in 2005 from the coast of Ellesmere, about 500 miles from the North Pole. Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface. Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s.
At 170 square miles and 130-feet thick, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants. Mueller said it has been steadily declining since the 1930s. Gary Stern, co leader of an international research program on sea ice, said it's the same story all around the Arctic.
Speaking from the Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen in Canada's north, Stern said He hadn't seen any ice in weeks. Plans to set up an ice camp last February had to be abandoned when usually dependable ice didn't form for the second year in a row, he said.
"Nobody on the ship is surprised anymore," Stern said. "We've been trying to get the word out for the longest time now that things are happening fast and they're going to continue to happen fast."
Is Global Warming Just HOAX?
These are just some thoughts on global warming denial and where we find ourselves at this point in time in relation to the environment.
Don't expect to find any solid data in this article to back my belief in the reality of catastrophic climate change, this is more of a heart piece I guess. I think there's so much data available now, it's a given. Just on this small site, there's hundreds of recent related news items summarized; collected just in the the first couple of months since I started Carbonify.com. What you see on this site doesn't even scratch the surface of the environmental disaster rapidly unfolding.
Ever since NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies made a correction to data that seemed to show 9 of the ten hottest years in U.S. history occurred since 1995 (turns out it was 3), the more vociferous of the "global warming deniers" have used this error to prove (they say) the whole idea of global warming induced climate change is a huge hoax. It smacks somewhat of desperation I feel.
I find it very difficult to believe that this one faux pas undermines the whole global warming credibility issue. I think it's a smokescreen so some folks don't feel pressured to make changes to lighten their impact on the environment.
If you've been used to living in a particular way and don't want that way to change, then denial of it possibly changing is a totally normal human reaction. It's a well known stage of grief. Wrap it up in a few cherry-picked facts and scientific gobbledegook and it even becomes believable.
But then again, the same can be said of the global warming believers I guess. I think the difference is the volume of data confirming the climate change reality - and not just words and numbers, but phenomenon we can see and feel.
Even if the U.N. came out tomorrow and said "ok, everyone, we got you good - global warming is a hoax" - I really wouldn't stop believing it unless many respected authors of various studies also admitted it's a hoax, if the Mauna Loa Observatory boffins said their atmospheric carbon dioxide data was a hoax and if my "spidey sense" said it was a hoax.
The "spidey sense" is an important element of all this to me.
In fact, a whole stack of organizations would need to come forward and say their data was a hoax before it would even put a dent in my convictions. I feel the planet dying, I feel the changes - have done since I was a child. I see the changes in plants and animals, I see the difference in the sunrises and sunsets. I feel the winds of major change; a whisper at first and now rapidly building into a storm. Global warming and climate change are only elements of it - we are witnessing a convergence of environmental crises - critical mass, toxic overload; whatever you like to call it.
When I was a fisherman and we were a long way out to sea, we knew to watch for a black line on the horizon. When it would appear, it was time to pull up our lines and skedaddle as it signified a storm was coming. If the storm should hit and we were still out there; there was nowhere to run and hide. I see the black line of global warming on our horizon now.
Animals are well adapted to detecting catastrophic change. We humans are not so sensitive, but we still have some of that instinct left over from our primitive past when we were more in touch with nature. Put the studies and debate aside for a moment. Reach inside yourself - what do you feel?
While my vision of the immediate future isn't rosey to some, it's not apocalyptic in the popular sense of the word by any means. The word "apocalypse" has its roots in Greek and means "the lifting of the veil". I do believe we're living in that time; religious beliefs aside. The apocalypse is not the end - it's the beginning. And like any storm, it will buffet us, create havoc, but behind it; the air will be clear and fresh.
Getting back to the deniers, many of them do raise a very valid point which certainly explains some of the recently more desperate nay-saying and screams of "hoax!". They are being marginalized. Some 'believers' are even going as far as saying their denial or skepticism borders on a crime against humanity.
The belief in climate change occurring has become so widespread, the deniers/skeptics feel threatened each time they express any opinion about a possible global warming hoax. Many are forming tight knit groups online to protect themselves, so they can continue to cling to their beliefs in a supportive environment. And that's perfectly natural too.
On an emotional level, I have this gut reaction that says that the global warming deniers are dangerous in that they interfere with alerting everyone to the dangers ahead and prevent the rapid, collective action necessary to minimize damage resulting from climate change. But on another level I know that's a very wrong way to be.
For starters, skepticism and denial are two very different states of being. A skeptic is someone who habitually or instinctively doubts or questions. Nothing wrong with that.
Debate is good. Various points of view being expressed is healthy. An opposing view seeking holes in a popular belief is wonderful. If the belief stands after all the holes have been pointed out and addressed, then belief becomes truth. The real truth.
I just don't think we've got a lot of time left to go through that process.
If anything, the various passionate diatribes and in some cases very intelligent arguments against the concept of global warming have done nothing but affirm my beliefs it's real, climate change is happening now.. and that it's going to have even far more reaching effects than I can comprehend at this point in time.
We need to let people have their opinion - allow them to express it and if they are doing so respectfully, treat it with respect. Listen to what they are saying; check out their sources. Far too often I see the global warming debate on forums and blogs denigrate into ad hominem attacks. This does nothing to help either side. It's simply wasting time.
Someone asked me a question along these lines recently; "if you believe in global warming so much, what's the point in living?" My response was basically, we all know we're going to die, so why do we continue to live? It's a basic imperative of living things to survive, but further to that, I see a chance at us minimizing the damage and perhaps a better world resulting from the changes about to occur.
Even if by some sort of miracle this global warming thing is just a big honest mistake; many of us have experienced an awakening. We've been alerted to the fact that we don't make rules on Planet Earth. We've taken steps to green our lives and generally be more respectful of the environment. Isn't that a good thing? Seems to me like it's the kick in the pants we've all needed.
Global Warming FAQ
What is global warming?
Global Warming describes is current trend in average temperatures around the world increasing as a result of human activity.
Using temperature measurements from historical records and current land and sea stations, in conjunction with satellite data; any doubt as to whether our planet is warming has been dispelled. Sea ice is retreating, glaciers are melting, species are migrating or disappearing and spring temperatures are arriving earlier each year.
What is the greenhouse effect?
The Greenhouse Effect is related to global warming in that it's the reason why excess heat from the surface of the Earth isn't dispersed into space. The glass on a greenhouse allows one type of radiation in, but reduces the amount another type can escape; causing the interior of the greenhouse to remain warm. This is what we are experiencing on our planet - gases such as carbon dioxide and methane act as the glass; allowing solar radiation in, but preventing heat from escaping.
Has global warming occurred in the past?
Yes, it has - while the earth has cooling and heating cycles, what we're currently seeing is a much more rapid change in temperature which is giving plants and animals far less time to adjust.
What human activities are linked to global warming?
Unfortunately, just about everything connected with modern society is a contributor. The cars we drive spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as does coal powered electricity generation, production processes for many of our goods. Even the millions of livestock we keep for food play their part by producing methane.
Why are trees part of the answer to global warming?
During parts of a day, trees ingest carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Mass deforestation has seriously compromized our planet's carbon dioxide recycling and conversion system.
Plant more trees and problem solved right?
Not quite. Nature maintains balances and humans are continually trying to override those rules. We haven't realized that this approach is endgame for the species. We need to soon. Trees are only part of the answer - we need to reduce our consumption and also commission more green energy resources such as solar, wind and geothermal electricity production. By buying green tags to offset your cars emissions and the emissions generated by your electricity supply, it helps investment into and supply of green energy.
How is carbon increasing global warming?
It isn't. People talk about carbon reduction, carbon emissions as a shortening of the term "carbon dioxide". We need to take carbon dioxide out of the air to allow some more heat from the planet to escape and convert it back into carbon; such as is stored in trees - hence the name of this site; carbonify.com.
How hot is it going to get?
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that our planet's average surface temperature will increase between 2.5° and 10.4°F (1.4°-5.8°C) between the 1990 average temperature and what it will be in 2100.
But it was cold last month! What gives?
There is a distinct difference between weather and climate. Weather is a set of meteorological conditions over a short span whereas climate is the average of those conditions over a longer period.
Hotter weather sounds good, what's the problem with climate change?
I don't like cold weather myself, but remember that Nature maintains a fine balance for a reason. Sudden changes in climate related to global warming will included :
- rapid melting of glaciers - loss of freshwater for humans, plants and animals that rely upon a steady flow
- extinction of plant and animals species that are very sensitive to temperature and unable to migrate
- tropical pests moving further south, bringing disease with them such as malaria
- low lying communities and countries being inundated by the see
- increased cyclones and hurricanes in some areas, severe drought in others.
- loss of habitat for animals such as the polar bear
- increased conflict among humans due to competition for resources
Can we avoid abrupt climate change?
Personally, I don't believe so. The amount of warming going on now will last for centuries and we have reached a tipping point. What we can do is to decrease the severity of what can occur if we act now - and right now. The longer we delay, the worse the affects will be.
Can We Bury Global Warming?
When William Shakespeare took a breath, 280 molecules out of every million entering his lungs were carbon dioxide. Each time you draw breath today, 380 molecules per million are carbon dioxide. That portion climbs about two molecules every year.
No one knows the exact consequences of this upsurge in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration nor the effects that lie ahead as more and more of the gas enters the air in the coming decades--humankind is running an uncontrolled experiment on the world. Scientists know that carbon dioxide is warming the atmosphere, which in turn is causing sea level to rise, and that the CO2 absorbed by the oceans is acidifying the water. But they are unsure of exactly how climate could alter across the globe, how fast sea level might rise, what a more acidic ocean could mean, which ecological systems on land and in the sea would be most vulnerable to climate change and how these developments might affect human health and well-being. Our current course is bringing climate change upon ourselves faster than we can learn how severe the changes will be.Global Warming Could Increase the Incidence of Kidney Stones
Add kidney stones to the growing list of possible consequences of global warming. A new study warns that as many as 2.3 million more people may develop these mineral deposits in their kidneys by the year 2050 as the result of a warming world. The reason? There's a greater risk that they will be subject to dehydration in more sultry climes, which is believed to be a major contributor to stone formation, according to research published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
"I think the reality of this study is accurate as temperatures do play a great role in stone diseases," says Stephen Nakada, chair of urology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
In the U.S., about 10 percent of men and 7 percent of women will develop a kidney stone during their lifetimes. The rate has been rising in recent decades, increasing from 3.6 percent of the overall population in 1976 to 5.2 percent by the mid-'90s. The study notes that this uptick correlates with an increase of half a degree Fahrenheit (0.28 degree Celsius) during the same period.
Most kidney stones form from minerals deposited in the two fist-size organs (located in the lower back on each side of the spine) as they filter urea, mineral salts, toxins and other products from the blood; others form from too much (uric) acid in the urine. Most of the sandlike crystals are tiny enough to exit the kidneys. Larger ones, however, may get stuck in the thread-like ureter that connects each kidney to the bladder, thereby blocking the flow of urine. When blockage occurs, a procedure (usually lithotripsy, which uses a surgical instrument or shock waves) is required to break it into small enough fragments to pass through the thin ureter. Urologists often suggest drinking plenty of water to help flush minerals from the kidneys to prevent stones from forming.
Researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, using estimates from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of temperature swells over the next 40 years, found that the percentage of the U.S. population living in high-risk areas for kidney stones will rise from 40 percent in 2000 to 56 percent in 2050. According to their data, the greatest jump in cases will likely be in the Midwest, with an overall rise in incidence of between 10 and 11 percent.
Study co-author Yair Lotan, an assistant professor of urology, acknowledges that the study is based on estimates that may change. "This means that things may not get as bad as we predict," he says, "or it could be that there will be even more cases of kidney stones than our models tell us."
Your Family Can Fight Global Warming
1. You Are What You Eat
How far has your food come to get on your dinner plate? One of the biggest causes of climate change is the transport of goods like food on trucks, boats and planes. Planes are particularly harmful to the climate because not only do they burn fossil fuels that make greenhouse gases, they put these gases high up in the atmosphere where the effect is worse.
One way we can help reduce climate change is to eat food that is grown locally and to have fruit and vegetables that are in season in your part of the country.
Climate Action: Have a look at different foods you have at home, and see if you can read on their packaging which country they come from. On a map, place an “x” where each item came from and then draw a line from there to your province. Now, look at the longest lines and the next time you go to a supermarket see if you can find the same sort of thing from somewhere closer to home.
As a family, try following these three rules:
- Buy food produced as close to home as you can.
- Read the labels in the store to find out where the food comes from.
- Take your own bags and re-use them. This saves the energy needed to produce more disposable bags.
What do plants, worms, frogs, and butterflies all have in common? They each reveal important truths about climate change. All you have to do is watch! Families across the country are recording simple observations about the world around them, such as bloom times for certain plants or frog populations in local ponds, as part of our national NatureWatch Program.
These easy recordings help scientists understand the impacts of climate change in Canada. You can participate in NatureWatch at your own pace and chosen location, even in your own backyard. Like most NatureWatchers, you’ll probably find that it is simple to incorporate nature observation into your regular routine.
Climate Action:
- Go to our NatureWatch page and choose a program.
- Download one of our handy observation forms so you can record the frogs, worms or plants you see.
- Check out our online identification guides on each program page to help you identify the species in your area.
- Then plan an outing with your family to a local park, lake or even just spend time in your yard. Enjoy the natural world around you!
Climate change affects all of us, including wildlife. The more people know about global warming, the better prepared they’ll be to do something about it. And everyone can do something – family, friends, your school, local businesses, big industry and governments.
So spread the word. The knowledge you pass on may make all the difference.Climate Action: Use the internet, newspapers and magazines help your child or grandchild find 5 things he or she didn’t know about global warming. This could be a new discovery by scientists, or new technologies that produce fewer greenhouse gases, or even tips from conservation groups about reducing your impact on the environment. Let them pick their favourite story or fact.
Once your child has found 5 things he didn’t know before, tell 5 other people about them. These people could be teachers, relatives, friends or anyone they choose – even a newspaper!
Labels can be found on most of the products we buy. They tell us many things – who made the product, what colour it is – and they often contain information that can help you decide how much a product affects climate change.
Reading the label before you buy something is one way to be a green shopper and a friend of the planet.
Climate Action:
-
Next time you go grocery shopping, let your children tag along. Count the number of items on your shopping list that can be bought locally. Food and other products produced near your home don’t have to be transported as far, which means fewer fossil fuels are burned and fewer greenhouse gases are emitted.
-
Next, take a look at the labels on electrical goods around your home. Large appliances like fridges have an energy rating but even smaller electrical goods should say how much power they use. Using energy-efficient products not only saves you money, it helps save the environment. Look for products with the ENERGY STAR logo – these are considered the most energy efficient.
-
Third, with your child or grandchild, count the number of things in your home that are produced from recycled materials. Your best bet is to look for things made from paper, cardboard or glass. There are a variety of symbols that tell you whether a product is made of recycled material, such as the Forest Stewardship Council symbol on paper products, or the Government of Canada’s EcoLogo symbol.
Now that you know more about the products you bring home, shop around for things that have less impact on climate change.
There are many reasons to turn the lights on – imagine how many stubbed toes we’d have if we left the lights off at night! Fortunately, there are ways of lighting our homes while consuming less energy.
For example, compact fluorescent bulbs use about 75 per cent less electricity than older incandescent bulbs. Low energy bulbs not only use less electricity to power them, but they also last longer, so you don’t need to buy as many of them. In fact, in some parts of Canada, incandescent bulbs are being legally phased out of use.
Light bulbs are marked in “watts” to show how bright they are. The higher the number of watts, the more electricity they use.
Climate Action: With your child or grandchild, look at the writing on the light bulbs in your house. If they are low energy they will say so and will typically be 25 watts or less. How many bulbs in your home use more than 25 watts, and how many use fewer than 25 watts?Next, think about which bulbs are on for the longest and as a family decide which ones you can replace with low energy bulbs. If you already have low energy bulbs, great!
Did you know? If all 12 million households in Canada replaced 16, 60-watt incandescent lightbulbs with 15-watt CFC lightbulbs, it would reduce the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions as taking 1 million cars off the road.
We are a mobile society. Busy families have places to go – and many ways to get there. How do you like to get around? By car, even for short trips?
Most cars use fossil fuels and put out a lot of carbon dioxide in their exhaust fumes. So do buses and trains but they carry a lot more people, so every time you use public transport instead of a car, you are doing your bit to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.Even better, if you cycle or walk for short trips, you not to only release far less carbon dioxide, which is kind to the environment, but you and your children will experience the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.
Climate Action: With your children, draw up a list of all the trips your family takes in a week or month. Trips to the grocery store, school, the office, soccer practice, a grandparent’s house – now write down your transportation options. Can you walk, cycle or take the bus for some of these trips? Can you car-pool? Try to commit to reducing your use of the car where you can.
People and wildlife need water to survive. The water we use comes from rain that is collected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs or from the ground. It may seem like there is a never-ending supply of water coming from our faucets and showers, but climate change is starting to have an effect. Climate forecasters tell us that we’ll have much hotter, drier summers in the coming years, so there will be less water when we need it more. It takes a lot of energy to turn rainwater into drinking water. And the more energy we use, the more impact we have on the climate. So saving water is great for wildlife as well as the climate.
Climate Action: Ask your child to count the number of taps you have in your house, and don’t forget outdoor taps. Now see if any of them drip when turned off normally. If none do, great! If any do, explain why that tap should get fixed.
Posters and drawings can make a difference. A big, simple, eye-catching message gets people’s attention and starts them thinking.
Climate Action: Ask your child to make a poster and put it somewhere where people will see it – in a window or on a wall. Suggest that they make their poster as bright and eye-catching as possible, but make the message clear. Here are some suggestions of climate change themes your child can use for a poster.
- Please Switch off the Light
- Legs are Made for Walking
- Love Your Planet
- I Care About the Climate
- It’s Getting Hot in Here!
- Or encourage them to make up their own slogan!
They can paint or draw their poster, use different materials – let them use their imagination! Just make sure it is big and bright so people will notice.
Every time we leave a computer, television, lamp, or electrical appliance on, even on standby, we are wasting electricity – and contributing to climate change. How?
Electricity is made by burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. Fossil fuels, which are formed from plants that have been dead for millions of years, contain carbon which is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide when we burn them. Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
Climate Action: With your child, count the number of electrical appliances in your home. How many are left on standby? Now count how many appliances – TVs, computers, radios – can be unplugged when not in use.
Your child may also want to draw small signs and stick them to some appliances as reminders to shut them off completely when no one is using them.
Regenwakeup.blogspot.com Privacy Statement
What follows is the Privacy Statement for all regenwakeup.blogspot.com websites (a.k.a. blogs) including all the websites run under the http://regenwakeup.blogspot.com domain.
Please read this statement regarding our blogs.
Ownership of Information
Regenwakeup.blogspot.com is the sole owner of any information collected on our websites.
Comments/Message Boards
Most regenwakeup.blogspot.com websites contain comment sections (a.k.a. message boards). We do not actively monitor these comments and the information on them is for entertainment purposes only. If we are alerted to something we deem inappropriate in any way, we may delete it at our discretion. We use email validation on most of our message boards in order to reduce “comment spam.” These email addresses will not be shared with any third party.
Cookies
Currently we assign cookies to our readers in order to save their preferences. This data is not shared with any third party. Accessing our websites is not dependent on accepting cookies and all major browsers allow you to disable cookies if you wish.
Third Party Cookies
Many of our advertisers use cookies in order to determine the number of times you have seen an advertisement. This is done to limit the number times you are shown the same advertisement. Regenwakeup.blogspot.com does not have access to this data.
Traffic Reports
Our industry-standard traffic reporting records IP addresses, Internet service provider information, referrer strings, browser types and the date and time pages are loaded. We use this information in the aggregate only to provide traffic statistics to advertisers and to figure out which features and editorials are most popular.
Legal proceedings
We will make every effort to preserve user privacy but regenwakeup.blogspot.com may need to disclose information when required by law.
Business Transitions
If regenwakeup.blogspot.com is acquired by or merges with another firm, the assets of our websites, including personal information, will likely be transferred to the new firm.
Links
Regenwakeup.blogspot.com websites frequently link to other websites. We are not responsible for the content or business practices of these websites. When you leave our websites we encourage you to read the destination site’s privacy policy. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by regenwakeup.blogspot.com
Notification of Changes
When regenwakeup.blogspot.com makes changes to this privacy policy we will post those changes here.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding our privacy policy, please contact us.
Effects of Global Warming on Polar Bears
The polar bear's home – the Arctic – is experiencing the effects of global warming more than any other place. Temperatures in the Arctic are rising at almost twice the rate of that of the rest of the world, and this is threatening to place the entire Arctic ecosystem in jeopardy.
- Common Name: Polar Bear
- Latin Name: Ursus Maritimus
- Status: Special Concern (according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
- Size: Males are typically between 2 and 3 m long and weigh up to 500 kg, though a few weigh as much as 800 kg. Females weigh between 150 to 250 kg.
- Population: 22,000 to 27,000
- Life Span: 20 to 25 years
- Range: Most polar bears live in Canada, but other populations exist in Alaska, Russia, Greenland and Norway.
- Threats: climate change, air pollution, oil spills, toxic chemicals.
Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming
And unlike a recent Hollywood movie, this is not just a lot of hot air and silly special effects. The planet is warming up; glaciers are melting, ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic are breaking up, low islands in the Pacific are becoming uninhabitable because of rising sea levels, heat waves and droughts… A seemingly unending litany of natural disasters pointing towards our planet becoming warmer and warmer.
Maybe what we need is a good old fashioned nuclear winter. I’m sure Dubya and his boys would be more than willing to launch a few dozen warheads, kick up a few megatons of fallout and dust to cool the planet a few degrees. Yee ha, stop global warming (excuse me, climate change) and teach those ungrateful Iraqis a little respect for freedom and democracy. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Climate Change - Effect On Water Resources
Fresh water, both on the surface of the land and in the ground, is an extremely valuable resource. We drink it, bathe in it, depend on it for transportation and recreation, water our lawns and crops with it, and eat the life that swims in it. Too much or too little water can have disasterous effects on our lives - floods, droughts, erosion, sinkholes, pests, and diseases are all related to the presence of more or less water than we usually experience.
Our water supply is directly tied to climate. The figure below shows annual mean runoff in the Upper Midwest as simulated using weather analyses from 1963 through 1995. Scientists now understand that the climate we experience today is not constant. Climate has been very different in the past and may be quite different from today's climate in our not-too-distant future.
Researchers at the Upper Midwest RESAC are studying how our regional water supply has changed in the past, and how those changes are related to climate. Our researchers are also developing techniques to investigate how future climate changes, such as global warming, may effect the supply of water in our area of the world. This research is intended to alert us regarding potential water resource problems in the future, and guide us in preventing those problems as much as possible.
Tips to Fight Global Warming
- Replace five incandescent lightbulbs in your home with compact fluorescents: Swapping those 75-watt incandescents with 19-watt CFLs can cut 275 pounds of CO2.
- Instead of short haul flights of 500 miles or so, take the train and bypass 310 pounds of CO2.
- Sure it may be hot, but get a fan, set your thermostat to 75 degrees and blow away 363 pounds of CO2.
- Replace refrigerators more than 10 years old with today's more energy-efficient Energy Star models and save more than 500 pounds of CO2.
- Shave your eight-minute shower to five minutes for a savings of 513 pounds.
- Caulk, weatherstrip and insulate your home. If you rely on natural gas heating, you'll stop 639 pounds of CO2 from entering the atmosphere (472 pounds for electric heating). And this summer, you'll save 226 pounds from AC use.
- Whenever possible, dry your clothes on a line outside or a rack indoors. If you air dry half your loads, you'll dispense with 723 pounds of CO2.
- Trim down on the red meat. Since it takes more fossil fuels to produce red meat than fish, eggs and poultry, switching to these foods will slim your CO2 emissions by 950 pounds.
- Leave the car at home and take public transportation to work. Taking the average U.S. commute of twelve miles by light rail will leave you 1,366 pounds of CO2 lighter than driving. The standard, diesel-powered city bus can save 804 pounds, while heavy rail subway users save 288.
- Finally, support the creation of wind, solar and other renewable energy facilities by choosing green power if offered by your utility. To find a green power program in your state, call your local utility or visit U.S. Department of Energy's Green Power Markets page. See also our Green Power Utilities Product Report.
Are the oceans warming?
The oceans are also warming at depth. There are sufficient data from the upper 3,000 m to provide a global estimate. In March 2000, NOAA reported that this layer had warmed on average by 0.06°C over the past 40 years. Most of this warming occurred in the top 300m, which warmed by around 0.3°C.
These data show that heat is entering the ocean from the surface and spreading downwards. The pattern of warming is remarkably similar to predictions from climate models, suggesting that the cause of the warming is primarily greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse Gas
- CO2 Carbon Dioxide
- CH4 Methane
- HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons (a class of several gasses)
- N2O Dinitrogen Oxide
- PFCs Perfluorocarbons (a class of several gasses)
- SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
Climate forcings, sensitivity, response time and feedbacks
Climate sensitivity is the response to a specified forcing, after climate has had time to reach a new equilibrium, including effects of fast feedbacks. A common measure of climate sensitivity is the global warming caused by a doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Climate models suggest that doubled CO2 would cause 3 °C global warming, with an uncertainty of at least 50%. Doubled CO2 is a forcing of about 4 W/m2, implying that global climate sensitivity is about 3/4 °C per W/m2 of forcing.
Climate response time is the time needed to achieve most of the climate response to an imposed forcing, including the effects of fast feedbacks. The response time of the Earth's climate is long, at least several decades, because of the thermal inertia of the ocean and the rapid mixing of waters within the upper few hundred meters of the ocean. Climate sensitivity and response time depend upon climate feedbacks, which are changes in the planetary energy balance induced by the climate change that can magnify or diminish climate response. Feedbacks do not occur immediately in response to a climate forcing; rather, they develop as the climate changes.
Fast feedbacks come into play quickly as temperature changes. For example, the air holds more water vapor as temperature rises, which is a positive feedback magnifying the climate response, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Other fast feedbacks include changes of clouds, snow cover, and sea ice. It is uncertain whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative, because clouds can increase or decrease in response to climate change. Snow and ice are positive feedbacks because, as they melt, the darker ocean and land absorb more sunlight.
Slow feedbacks, such as ice sheet growth and decay, amplify millennial climate changes. Ice sheet changes can be treated as forcings in evaluating climate sensitivity on time scales of decades to centuries.
What can Paleoclimatology tell us about climate change relevant to society in the future?
To understand and predict changes in the climate system, we need a more complete understanding of seasonal to century scale climate variability than can be obtained from the instrumental climate record. The instrumental temperature record indicates that the Earth has warmed by 0.5°C (0.9°F) from 1860 to the present. However, this record is not long enough to determine if this warming should be expected under a naturally varying climate, or if it is unusual and perhaps due to human activities. Paleoclimatic proxy data can be used to extend climate records and provide a longer time frame (hundreds to tens of thousands of years) for evaluating the warming of the last 140 years. The cause of global warming over the last century remains a heated debate with significant economic and societal implications. Many scientists attribute the current global warming to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by human activities. Other scientists have suggested that other factors not affected by humans, such as changes in the number and size of volcanic eruptions or an increase in the sun's output (such phenomena are referred to as climate forcings), are responsible. A paleoclimate perspective provides information about long term changes in different climate forcings that may be the underlying cause of the observed climate change. An analogy of how paleoclimatic data improves our understanding of climate can be explained in terms of the stock market. Stock market analysts use longer term trends (one, two, three, or six months) in the stock market indexes (DOW, NASDAQ, etc.) rather than depending on changes from one day to the next or over a week to predict what the market will do next (i.e., Bull or Bear Market). In much the same way, the paleoclimate perspective allows us to evaluate climate change many decades and centuries into the past, in order to develop a more reliable estimate of how climate may change in the future.
The paleoclimate perspective can help us answer many questions, including...
- Is the last century of climate change unprecedented relative to the last 500, 2000, and 20,000 years?
- Do recent global temperatures represent new highs, or just part of a longer cycle of natural variability?
- Is the recent rate of climate change unique or commonplace in the past?
- What does it mean if the last century is unprecedented in terms of warming?
- Can we find evidence in the paleoclimate record for mechanisms or climate forcings that could be causing recent climate change?
What is Climate?
Climate is the weather pattern we expect over the period of a month, a season, a decade, or a century. More technically, climate is defined as the weather conditions resulting from the mean, or average, state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system, often described in terms of "climate normals" or average weather conditions. Climate Change is a departure from the expected average weather or climate normals.
Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting
In a recent study by researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that Greenland's ice sheet, about 8% of the Earth's grounded ice (Antarctica possessing 91% of land ice), is losing ice mass. A NASA high-tech aerial survey shows that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is melting along Greenland's coasts yearly, accounting for 7% of the annual global sea level rise. Measurements over the last century suggest that sea level has risen 9 inches, enough to cause flooding in low-lying areas, when a storm occurs. Sea level increase could worsen, if the present trend continues, says William Krabill, lead author of the NASA study.
Panel Supports a Controversial Report on Global Warming
An influential and controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed Thursday, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the 1990's were probably the warmest decade in a millennium.
But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.
The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.
It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some industry-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.
"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was that the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."
More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here on Thursday, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.
The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.
In the report, the panel emphasized that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.
The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.
The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.
The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "Inconvenient Truth."
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.
The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.
On his Web log, climateaudit.org, on Thursday, Mr. McIntyre said the panel's report seemed to have "two completely distinct personalities," upholding specific criticisms of Dr. Mann's methods, but still positing it was plausible that recent warming exceeded any warm periods for 1,000 years.
In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis had held up over time.
But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.
The paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was called "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona.)
The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.
In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."
Critics of the paper remain unconvinced.
A separate panel of statisticians is dissecting Dr. Mann's data and papers for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a spokesman for the chairman, Mr. Barton, said.
What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?
Life on earth depends on energy from the sun. About 30 percent of the sunlight that beams toward Earth is deflected by the outer atmosphere and scattered back into space. The rest reaches the planet’s surface and is reflected upward again as a type of slow-moving energy called infrared radiation.
As infrared radiation is carried aloft by air currents, it is absorbed by “greenhouse gases” such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, which slows its escape from the atmosphere.
Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet.
This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem.
The Greenhouse Effect
Over the last 400,000 years the Earth's climate has been unstable, with very significant temperature changes, going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a few decades. These rapid changes suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks. As can be seen from the blue curve, temperatures have been less variable during the last 10 000 years. Based on the incomplete evidence available, it is unlikely that global mean temperatures have varied by more than 1°C in a century during this period. The information presented on this graph indicates a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature. A possible scenario: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs could bring the climate to a state where it reverts to the highly unstable climate of the pre-ice age period. Rather than a linear evolution, the climate follows a non-linear path with sudden and dramatic surprises when GHG levels reach an as-yet unknown trigger point.
September 25, 2007 NASA-Melting Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a 29-year low, significantly below the minimum set in 2005, according to preliminary figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado at Boulder. NASA scientists, who have been observing the declining Arctic sea ice cover since the earliest measurements in 1979, are working to understand this sudden speed-up of sea ice decline and what it means for the future of Earth's northern polar region.
At the end of each summer, the sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent and the ice that remains is called the perennial ice cover, which consists mainly of thick multi-year ice floes. The area of the perennial ice has been steadily decreasing since the satellite record began in 1979, at a rate of about 10% per decade. But the 2007 minimum, reached around Sept. 14, is far below the previous record made in 2005 and is about 38% lower than the climatological average. This data visualization shows the annual sea ice minimum from 1979 through 2007.
The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) is a high-resolution passive microwave Instrument on NASA's Aqua satellite. AMSR-E provides a remarkably clear view of sea ice dynamics in greater detail than has ever been seen before. Researchers use this information to study polar bear habitats, plan expeditions to the ice, and to study the interactions between the ocean and sea ice from season to season. This data visualization shows Arctic sea ice from Jan. 1, 2007 to Sept. 16, 2007.
Because Arctic ice cover varies so much year to year, it can be dangerous to look at any one year and draw too much of a conclusion from it," said Waleed Abdalati, head of Goddard's Cryospheric Sciences Branch. "But this year, the amount of ice is so far below that of previous years that it really is cause for concern. The trend in decreasing ice cover seems to be getting stronger and stronger as time goes on."NASA developed the original capability to observe the extent and concentration of sea ice from space using passive microwave sensors. More recently, NASA launched an advanced microwave instrument in 2002 -- the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on the Aqua satellite -- that provides a view of sea ice dynamics in greater detail than has ever been seen before. Researchers use this information to study polar bear habitats and the unique movements of sea ice from season to season. AMSR-E is a joint project of NASA and the National Space Development Agency of Japan.
In September 2007, the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time since satellite records began. The passage is a direct route from Europe to Asia for ships traveling through the Arctic. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on NASA's Terra satellite captured this image of the ice-free Northwest Passage on Sept. 15, 2007.
Current satellites, however, can map sea ice in two dimensions, but it is much more difficult to find out how the thickness of the ice contributes to the change in the total volume of the ice. NASA's ICESat spacecraft (Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite), launched in 2003, with the primary goal of determining how much ice sheets are contributing to sea-level rise. ICESat is also collecting data that enables scientists to make estimates of sea ice thickness with unprecedented detail."What we need to truly understand the interaction of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the Arctic is sea ice thickness information," said Abdalati. "The new capability we have with ICESat is expected to be extended into the next decade based on recent recommendations by the National Research Council for a follow-on mission. Ultimately, like the 29-year record we have now of sea ice cover, a long-term ice thickness record will help scientists understand these complex interactions and what the changes in the ice cover will mean to the ecology of the Arctic and to life on Earth."NASA has been observing sea ice from space since the 1970s, beginning with the Electricallly Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SSMR) and Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensors on the US Defense Meteorological Space Program (DMSP) satellites, and now with the AMSR-E instrument on NASA's Earth Observing System/Aqua satellite. Data collected by these instruments have been instrumental in shaping public policy and international perspectives on the Arctic.
