Climate Change [Archive] - Page 3

Boomer Chick

06-23-2005, 07:21 AM

Senate Defeats Move to Cap Climate Gases
June 22, 2005 8:33 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - The Senate soundly defeated a proposal Wednesday for mandatory reductions in heat-trapping pollution that may be warming the Earth. Supporters managed to get five fewer votes than they did two years ago.

The proposal to cap greenhouse gases at 2000 levels, within five years, lost by a 60-38 vote. It was a victory for President Bush's policies that focus on voluntary actions by industry to address the problem.

Separately, the Senate agreed to give Washington clear authority to override states' objections to the location of liquefied natural gas terminals.

Senators rejected, by 52-45, an amendment to a broad energy bill that would have allowed governors to veto a federal permit for such a terminal because of state concerns about safety or environmental harm.

Proponents said deciding where to put these facilities was a federal matter because imports will help meet a growing demand for natural gas and perhaps lower prices. But opponents of the idea said states should have a greater say because of concerns about possible tanker spills and terrorism.

"We're not talking about the siting of a neighborhood ballpark or a Wal-Mart," said GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, which has rejected several LNG projects. "It's a states' rights issue, plain and simple."

The debate about the climate was seen by some as a barometer of congressional support for Bush's strategy. His approach has come under criticism from environmentalists and some European leaders who say it does not adequately address one of the most pressing environmental issues.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged his colleagues to support the measure he sponsored with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., though he realized the long odds.

"I can take the temperature" of the Senate, McCain said.

On Tuesday, senators had approved modest proposals that would require no cuts in emissions but would increase support for new, clean-energy and carbon-capturing technologies.

"The evidence is now compelling, overwhelming. The world knows that climate change is real," McCain said. "Those who have debunked this and continue to debunk it will have somebody to answer to in not too many years from now."

The approach approved on Tuesday was "meaningless" and "a fig leaf," he said, to hide the fact that the U.S. is doing little to reduce this kind of pollution. Many scientists believe it is trapping heat in the atmosphere and causing the Earth to warm.

Two years ago, the McCain-Lieberman proposal got 43 votes when it was offered as part of an energy bill two years ago.

Opponents said mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions would hurt the economy while driving the coal and other industries out of business. They also said such caps would do little to solve the climate problem because emissions are continuing to grow in China and elsewhere.

"The reason this bill can't pass is because it can't be implemented," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

He said Bush is pressing for voluntary measures to rein in the growth in emissions "and I don't argue with him."

Sen. James Inhofe, one of the leading skeptics of climate change science, said, "Energy prices and the economy is what we're talking about." Inhofe, R-Okla., said the mandatory caps would be "devastating" to industry because of their cost.

When it came to imports of liquefied natural gas, many senators from coastal states objected to a part of the energy bill that says federal regulators have "exclusive" authority in the final say about where a facility is built.

"States must have a role in siting LNG facilities to protect the welfare of their citizens," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

She failed in an attempt to add proposals that would have given governors the right to veto a federal siting decision.

Energy experts predict a soaring growth of LNG imports over the next 20 years to make up for a shortfall of domestic natural gas. Currently, there are only four import terminals. But some 40 new facilities have been proposed; perhaps one-third of them are expected to be built.

"Our biggest challenge is the price of natural gas. More needs to be imported," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former governor.

Domenici said a project still would need various zoning, environmental and other permits, and that governors would have input in any siting decision.

"There is no intention in our legislation that local authorities be usurped," he insisted.

A report last year by the Sandia National Laboratory concluded that a terrorist attack on a tanker carrying liquefied natural gas would create an intense fire at a terminal. The fire would cause significant property damage and seriously burn people who were as far as a mile away from the facility.

LNG now accounts for only about 3 percent of U.S. natural gas use. The Energy Department estimates the market share will grow to more than 20 percent by 2025 because of a decline in domestic natural gas supplies.

---

On the Net:

White House Council of Environmental Quality: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/

Center for LNG: http://www.lngfacts.org/

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: www.ferc.gov

Sandia National Laboratory: http://www.sandia.gov/

Big_Gay_Ed

06-24-2005, 08:49 PM

Brutal heat wave in South Central Asia

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-06-23-Asia-heat_x.htm?POE=WEAISVA

Death toll hits 390 in Asia heat wave
NEW DELHI (AP) — A blistering heat wave has been blamed for at least 390 deaths across India and Pakistan, but officials said Thursday that monsoon rains could bring relief next week.

A mother cools her children in the River Ganges in Allahabad, India.
Rajesh Kumar Singh, via AP

At least seven people, including two women, collapsed and died in New Delhi on Wednesday as temperatures here reached a sauna-like 113°F. That and another 16 deaths elsewhere in India brought the number of deaths from the heat wave to more than 300 over the past two months, officials said.

In neighboring Pakistan, residents sweated in 118°F weather. The heat left more than 60 people dead this week. In Bangladesh 32 people have died.

Meteorologists said temperatures in India were unusually high for June, at least 10°F above the normal range for the month.

Hot weather was found elsewhere in Asia, too. In fast developing China, some residents put their new prosperity to use by flicking on air conditioning units. Power use in Beijing hit a record high as temperatures there passed 108°F, reports said Thursday.

The Chinese government advised the public to stay indoors during the hottest hours of the day, and street vendors said sales of cold tea and ice cream were up.

Most of the dead on the Indian subcontinent, meanwhile, were among the old and the poor, who lack proper shelter and adequate drinking water. Also, the searing heat was made worse by power cuts that shut off fans and water pumps.

Many places in northern India were facing acute water shortages, with wells and ponds going dry and government water supplies running short. In the town of Kurukshetra in Haryana, irate residents blocked the main highway for several hours on Wednesday to protest power outages and lack of drinking water.

In Pakistan, nine people have died over the past two days in southern Punjab province, where temperatures climbed to a dizzying 118ºF on Wednesday.

Big_Gay_Ed

06-24-2005, 08:56 PM

And very bad floods in China. Over 500 people have died because of the floods. :(

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050623233309990006

China Says Death Toll in Flooding Tops 500
By STEPHANIE HOO, AP

BEIJING (June 24) - Record-high floodwaters rushed through southern China's industrial heart Friday, putting factories and railway lines in the path of torrents that have killed at least 536 people nationwide in the past two weeks.

Government forecasters warned of more ''torrential rains'' in the densely populated south, especially north of Hong Kong around the Pearl River Delta - a hub for China's booming export industries.

The Pearl River was swelling late Friday, the official Xinhua News Agency reported, calling it ''the largest flood peak in the region's history.''

Across southern China, rains and mudslides have killed at least 97 people this week and left another 41 missing, the agency said.

About 1.5 million people have been evacuated from a six-province swath, while total economic losses were estimated at $2.5 billion, state media reported.

Especially hard-hit was Guangdong province, which borders Hong Kong and is China's most populous region, with more than 100 million people.

Road and railway traffic was cut in some areas, including the main Beijing-Hong Kong railroad line.

So far, most damage in Guangdong appears to be to farms, with export-oriented factories largely unaffected, said Ruby Zhu, China economist for the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce.

''But if it gets more serious, we're not sure what will happen in Guangdong province,'' she said.

A front-page photo in the Guangzhou Daily newspaper, published in Guangdong's provincial capital, showed floodwaters so high in one town they nearly reached the top of telephone poles.

High water levels could spread sewage, polluting drinking water and raising health risks as well as damaging crops, said Alistair Henley, the Beijing representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

''There will be a lot of suffering, particularly for the rural people in neighboring counties,'' Henley said.

The nationwide death toll of 536 was higher than most of the rainy seasons of the past decade - though still below that of 1998, when 4,150 people were killed in summer flooding in central and northeastern China.

China suffers hundreds of flood deaths every year during its June-August rains. Rivers overflow and water rushes down mountains stripped of trees following decades of intensive farming and inattention to the environment.

State television Friday showed people clinging to rubber hoses to avoid being swept away, as well as soldiers placing babies in straw baskets to be lowered with ropes and pulleys into wooden rowboats.

Soldiers and civilians formed brigades to fill and carry sandbags to shore up faltering dams and riverbanks, in a country where most labor is still done by hand.

Flooding in parts of Guangxi, west of Guangdong on China's southern coast, was the worst in a century in the poor, mountainous region, according to state media.

Authorities in Macau, the former Portuguese colony west of Hong Kong at the mouth of the Pearl River, issued a flood warning, saying

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/06/06/20050624125409990004
Residents navigate a flooded street in the outskirts of the southern Chinese city of Wuzhou.

foot_soldier

06-24-2005, 10:56 PM

One of the first things I heard on the news this morning was the comment by a reporter that "it's so hot in south Asia that people are dropping dead."

jayreynolds

06-25-2005, 08:58 PM

One of the first things I heard on the news this morning was the comment by a reporter that "it's so hot in south Asia that people are dropping dead."
It's almost as if it were summertime already!

Seriously, folks, even the Indians are talking about how poverty is the real killer there:
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73344

The forecast for Phoenix regularly goes up to 110F, and no one seems bothered.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/redirect.php?wfo=psr

I know, I know, "it's a 'dry heat'................

foot_soldier

06-27-2005, 08:20 PM

"Summertime" - why of course!

People have always dropped dead by the hundreds in the summertime. We just never noticed before.

June 22, 2005
Asia heat wave kills at least 375
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050622/india_nm/india_206849

BOMBAY (Reuters) - At least 375 people have died from sunstroke and dehydration in a month-long heat wave sweeping India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as South Asia endures one of its hottest summers on record, authorities said.

Temperatures hit 50 degrees Celsius in some parts of South Asia this week, parching fields, emptying dams and drying river beds ahead of the annual monsoon.

Freak weather extended as far as northern China, where the heat set off explosives at a chemical plant in Shanxi province that injured hundreds. In central Chongqing city, authorities opened old bomb shelters so people can cool off.

Worst hit was Orissa, where almost 100 people were reported killed from the heat.

Streets in the region emptied and many cities and villages resembled ghost towns as residents stayed indoors to avoid the sun. The state ordered government offices to close before noon.

"The heat wave along with occasional power-cuts had made life miserable here," said Lingaraj Panda, a local resident..... (continued)

June 26, 2005
More Than 100 Die in Pakistan Heat Wave
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-pakistan-heat-deaths,0,3573966.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

LAHORE, Pakistan -- More than a week of sweltering heat has left more than 100 people dead in Pakistan, many of them in the country's eastern Punjab province, officials said Sunday.

Temperatures have soared up to 122 degrees in some parts of Punjab, and in the capital Islamabad Saturday was the hottest day in 11 years with 113 degree temperatures, said Imran Siddiqi, an official at the Pakistan Meteorological Department.

Since the heat wave began more than a week ago, 105 people have died in Punjab, said Javed Asghar, a health ministry official in the province's capital of Lahore. Sunstroke, dehydration and food poisoning have caused most of the deaths, he said.

At least 19 deaths have been reported in the southern Sindh, southwestern Baluchistan and North West Frontier provinces in recent days.

In the neighboring countries of India and Bangladesh, a heat wave has left more than 400 dead in the past two months..... (continued)

June 27, 2005
Heat wave alert as southern Europe bakes
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050627/1/3t6jd.html

Southern Europe was on heat wave alert faced with baking temperatures and drought conditions, two years after the heat claimed tens of thousands of lives across the continent.

Governments in France, Portugal, Spain and Italy have rushed to put in place emergency measures to deal with the heat's worst effects, keen to show they have learned from a heat wave that caught them unawares in 2003, with Italy and France particularly hard-hit.

Despite refreshing morning rainfall in Madrid, much of southern and central Spain has been sweltering in temperatures reaching 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) for weeks, though the weekend did bring some respite.

The southern region of Andalucia has already put in place a text-messaging alert system to warn the elderly and the infirm living alone, as well as parents of very young children, of impending high temperatures above 41 Celsius..... (continued)

foot_soldier

06-27-2005, 08:38 PM

June 27, 2005
Seven Deaths Linked to Italy Heat Wave
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-italy-heat-wave,0,7200271.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

ROME -- Italy's health minister said Monday a heat wave linked to at least seven deaths is putting the lives of 1 million elderly Italians at risk and announced steps to protect people over 80 who live alone.

Health Minister Francesco Storace said Italian authorities wanted to avoid a repeat of the fatalities of the summer of 2003, when a prolonged heat wave which scorched Europe was blamed for thousands of deaths. Many of those deaths were of elderly people who lived alone.

"We are alarmed," Storace told a news conference outlining the measures, which include allowing health clinics access to lists of names of those most at risk -- people older than 80 who live alone and who have had repeated recent hospitalizations. He said the number of those at risk was 1 million.

The measures also include house calls on those at risk, TV and radio spots reminding people to drink lots of water and stay inside during the hottest hours, and a toll-free number offering advice on how to cope.

This early summer heat wave has been linked to at least seven fatalities in Italy, including an Austrian tourist who collapsed from a heart attack Sunday while strolling in the northern resort of Jesolo, La Repubblica newspaper reported.

Northern Italy has been hit hardest by the heat wave, with temperatures in Milan, Florence and Turin rising above 95 degrees..... (continued)

June 27, 2005
Wilted Europe eyes global warming (and air conditioners)
A searing heat wave closes stores, opens windows, and gives new life to perceptions that America is inattentive to global warming.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0627/p07s01-woeu.html

"I'm sorry, sir, but we can't take credit cards today. It's the heat, you know."

The smiling waitress at a sidewalk cafe in this European capital more accustomed to freezing winters than wilting summers was dead serious. Apparently because of what French speakers call la canicule - the heat wave - the credit card I'd presented was not acceptable. Yes, phone lines were working, but the heat-averse card machine was not. So it would have to be cold cash..... (continued)

June 27, 2005
13 hospitalized after lightning strikes ballfield; Pool drowning tied to day's high heat
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/27/13_hospitalized_after_lightning_strikes_ballfield/

Powerful storms triggered by days of high heat sent six adults and seven teenage girls at a Rockland softball game to hospitals yesterday when a lightning bolt struck a pine tree near the field and electrified the ground, authorities said.

Earlier in Weston, a 37-year-old man drowned when he sought refuge from the heat in a pool, though police said he did not know how to swim.

The drowning occurred about two hours before lightning storms wreaked havoc from Rockland to the Merrimack Valley. In Methuen, two houses were struck by lightning about 6 p.m. and caught fire. One firefighter was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation and released, said Methuen Fire Captain Cliff Gallant.

The girls injured by lightning in Rockland, all 14 and 15 years old, play on the Holy Family CYO girls softball team, run by a local Catholic church, said Rockland Deputy Fire Chief Bill Ferguson.

The adults and the girls were conscious after the incident and were taken to the hospitals as a precaution.

( ... )

Thunderstorms rolled across pockets of the state, cooling temperatures after two days of 90-degree heat and oppressive humidity.

Torrential rains in the northwest corner of the state downed 100 trees in Northfield and rained hail the size of ping-pong balls on Amherst, according to the National Weather Service in Taunton.

Today should bring some relief, with storms clearing up and temperatures dipping to the mid-80s. The average high temperature for this time of year is 79 degrees.

( ... )

But the heat also brought tragedy. Weston police were called about 2:20 p.m. by a resident of Concord Road whose caretaker was spotted languishing in a pool.

Yahaya Isabirye of Walpole apparently tried to escape yesterday's heat by venturing into a small, fenced-in pool at the side of the house. Isabirye was pronounced dead at Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a spokeswoman said.

Fox25-TV reported last night that Isabirye worked hard and was about a month away from bringing his family to the United States from Uganda. (Full story at link.)

jayreynolds

06-28-2005, 06:18 AM

Oh, dear, now lightning and drowning in swimming pools are relevant to "climate change".

What will they think of next?

Shark attacks?

Boomer Chick

06-29-2005, 12:17 AM

Remote Sensing of climate change and the environment! Excellent resource page!

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties/bytes.html

halva

07-04-2005, 11:59 AM

Arnold Schwarzenegger: It's not a time for talk. It's a time for action

The Terminator: There's no doubt about the science. Now we must all gear our economies to take on global warming
Published: 03 July 2005

I don't know how apparent it is to people in Britain, but California has long been a leader in environmental protection. We have never taken for granted the clean air, clean water and natural beauty that make our state such a desirable place to live, to work, and to raise our families. That žs why, when I became Governor of California, I announced a bold agenda to continue and strengthen our commitment to meeting the many environmental challenges we face.

During the past 18 months, we created the 25 million-acre Sierra Nevada Conservancy, the largest conservancy in the nation; we opened the path to the Hydrogen Highway, which will encourage the building of hydrogen fuelling stations and the use of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles; we sponsored the first Ocean Protection Act in the nation to protect and restore our ocean resources; and we secured permanent funding to reduce emissions from dirty engines and equipment.

In addition, with our Green Building Initiative, we have put the biggest user of electricity in California - the state government itself - on an energy diet. By requiring new state buildings to use the latest environmentally friendly and energy efficient design and construction methods, we will reduce electricity and water use by more than 20 per cent in our state-owned facilities.

Now it is time for Californians to seriously address the issue of climate change and its potential to create havoc with our environment and economy. The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate. And we know the time for action is now.

I launched our effort when California hosted the United Nations World Environment Day Conference in San Francisco last month, where leaders from around the world gathered to discuss our shared responsibility for protecting the earth. It was there that I signed an executive order to establish clear and ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our state: by the year 2010 our goal is to reduce our emissions to less than those we produced in 2000; by 2020 our goal is to make our emissions lower than 1990 levels; and by 2050 our goal is to reduce overall emissions to a full 80 per cent below those we produced in 1990.

Greenhouse gases are emitted from every sector of the economy, and these pollutants blanket the globe, trapping heat and creating the "greenhouse" effect, often referred to as global warming. Global warming threatens California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines and forests - our entire economy and way of life. We have no choice but to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to achieve our goals, we are implementing California's landmark greenhouse gas law, which requires lower-emitting vehicles to be sold in our state, starting in 2009. We are accelerating the timetable to get more energy from renewable resources, such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio-mass conversion to 20 per cent by 2010 and 33 per cent by 2020. We have implemented the world's most stringent appliance and building efficiency standards. We are aggressively pursuing with the legislature my proposal to have one million solar-powered homes and buildings in California to save energy and reduce pollution. We are greening the state's fleet of government vehicles, to be the most fuel-efficient in the world.

These steps are great for the environment and great for our economy, too. Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both.

That is why I am travelling around the state and my administration is holding a series of conservation summits for businesses around California, spreading the word that pollution reduction is good.

Pollution reduction has long been a money saver for businesses. It lowers operating costs, raises profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology.

Many private businesses in California are cutting greenhouse gas emissions by simply improving efficiency. Others are also implementing cutting-edge hydrogen fuel technologies, installing advanced solar power systems and constructing environmentally friendly buildings.

And best of all, many California companies are participating in the public and private partnerships that are being formed with the state and some of our leading universities and research centres to find innovative means to create a cleaner and healthier environment.

All of these environmental technologies will allow us to conserve energy, cut pollution, protect our natural resources and create jobs for Californians. We must all accept the challenge to protect our environment. In California, I am pleased that we are once again providing leadership in this critical area. We understand that in this world in which we live, our actions sometimes have unintended consequences for our land, air and water. As John Muir, an immigrant from your islands who launched America's conservation movement here in California, once said: "When one tugs at a single thing in nature he finds it attached to the rest of the world." I ask citizens and governments everywhere to do their part by conserving energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels, reducing waste and taking every opportunity to work together for a cleaner, healthier tomorrow. It is not enough for us to be just caretakers of the world that we have been given, we must leave it a better place for future generations.

This is our duty to those who share this world with us and to those who follow us.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is Governor of California

Hooligan

07-06-2005, 01:58 PM

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Favors US Joining
With G8 Members to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Virtually all respondents—94%—said the US should limit its greenhouse gases at least as much as the other developed countries do on average.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/ClimateChange/html/climate070505.html

Hooligan

07-06-2005, 02:41 PM

I can't believe it...

Bush says man contributes to global warming
Wed Jul 6, 2005 9:34 AM BST

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he recognised that man contributes to global climate change but remained unyielding in his opposition to the Kyoto accord on the issue.

"Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he told a news conference during a visit to Denmark on his way to the G8 summit in Scotland.

He said: "Kyoto didn't work for the United States and frankly it didn't work for the world" because many developing nations were not included. He said he was pushing for a "post-Kyoto era" at the G8 summit.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-07-06T083413Z_01_MCC630843_RTRUKOC_0_BUSH-CLIMATE.xml

foot_soldier

07-06-2005, 03:02 PM

Well, he's the "commander-in-chief", see, and he "doesn't have to explain himself to anybody." People may need to explain themselves to him... That's what's nice about being "commander."

Note how cavalierly he relegates Kyoto to history - as if just because the U.S. rejected it, it therefore never existed.

Nice touch.

This guy just never quits.

halva

07-06-2005, 09:32 PM

Reposted from the new 'Ama Lahi' forum:

What new element is added to the discussion by the documentary we are to see tonight? It is the original idea that atmospheric pollution, specifically visible particle pollution, not invisible pollution from greenhouse gases, is something to be welcomed in the sense that it has a cooling effect, mitigating the warming caused by those greenhouse gases.

This conception is virtually unknown to the general public, though commonplace among climate scientists. Its least unknown expression is doubtless the 1997 text of Edward Teller ‘Sunscreen for Planet Earth’.

In public discussion on climate change the image that is projected is that on the one hand the Europeans and the rest of the world support the Treaty of Kyoto as a necessary measure in combating fossil-fuel dependence while on the other the Americans sabotage Kyoto because Mr. Bush and his supporters have not been persuaded of the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

I see this representation of the situation as a caricature. For a start, the Americans do not interpret the scientific data differently. This is confirmed by the content of last year’s ‘Pentagon Report’ on climate change. It is also confirmed by refutations by President Bush’s scientific advisor in the course of the current G8 negotiations of claims that “the White House does not believe in global warming”.

How can one explain the political gulf separating the USA from the rest of the world on this issue?

The answer may be provided by the climate scientists Peter Cox, who towards the end of the ‘Global Dimming’ documentary says: “If we carry on pumping out the particles it will have terrible impact on human health, I mean particles are involved in all sorts of respiratory diseases… If you fiddle with the radiative balance of the planet, you affect all sorts of circulation patterns like monsoons, which would have horrible effects on people. So it would be extremely difficult, in fact impossible, to cancel out the greenhouse effect just by carrying on pumping out particles, even if it wasn't for the fact that particles are damaging for human health.”

Bear in mind that in the course of the controversy over the political declaration on climate change to be issued by the G8, the Observer newspaper revealed that the US government insisted on deleting from the final communiquι the statement that ‘every year atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and premature deaths for millions of people.’

The real difference between the United States and the rest of the world on the subject of climate change has to do not with diagnosis but with treatment. The treatment preferred by the American government and its supporting oil companies appears much worse than the disease itself.

Of course the so-called ‘mitigation policies’ are not merely a national preference of the United States. They are the strategy of all the international community, including relevant agencies of the United Nations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is for this reason that open critics of the strategy - and there are a number of them, particularly in Italy and the German-speaking world - do not enjoy very good relations with climate scientists and are in fact marginalised.

Nevertheless, in my opinion it is more expedient for public discussion to be conducted with heretics such as activists who reject IPCC policies on climate mitigation than it is for there to be inclusion of so-called climate change ‘sceptics’ who are funded by oil companies and oppose the IPCC for opposite reasons: because this committee of the United Nations seeks to end dependence of the international economy on fossil fuels.

(The implication is that Bush's blathering about climate change not being proved to be caused by humans has been internal-politically motivated flattering of his constituency unrelated to actual policy. W.H. )

foot_soldier

07-12-2005, 06:31 PM

If we're going to have to share space here in the Science section with threads about Fendi bags I think it's reasonable to have the threads that are actually science-related on top.

Boomer Chick

07-12-2005, 09:43 PM

Love that Robert Redford!

Mayors Meet to Discuss Global Warming -- June 10th in Utah!

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=217703

If you find anything else about it, that would be nice!

Boomer Chick

07-14-2005, 10:17 AM

We have neglected to include a particular theory regarding global warming. This theory regards the core of our planet. According to PhD, J. Marvin Herndon, instead of a molton core of iron and other metals, he purports that the center is a giant nuclear reactor.

See his total theory here:

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/

I'm investigating the latest online science gossip that just recently our earth sent into space a surge of energy. If any of you can locate credible information on this, I would appreciate.

According to Herndon as far as my present understanding, the warming of the planet may be occurring from within.

Will post my findings soon.

Boomer Chick

07-18-2005, 01:22 PM

Global Warming Roils Congress

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

A heated war of words over a global warming research paper has boiled over in Congress. Two powerful Republicans are brawling over an investigation that one calls "misguided and illegitimate."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-07-18-warming-congress_x.htm

Washington, DC 20515
Friday, July 15, 2005

Dear Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield,

As scientists with expertise relevant to the understanding of Earth’s changing climate, we are writing to help inform the inquiry you are conducting on the work of Drs. Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. We understand that as a representative of the American people, you have a responsibility to inform yourself and your colleagues about scientific knowledge that is relevant to policy decisions. However, we are deeply concerned about your approach and we respectfully submit the following clarifying context.

In your letters of June 23, 2005, to these scientists, you state, “We open this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely.” In fact, the specific findings of Mann et al. constitute only one item among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have contributed to the present consensus on the serious nature of climate change. While the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted this work as a useful illustration of our understanding of the impact of fossil fuel-related emissions on climate change, in no way does the report suggest that it is an essential element of that understanding. This understanding has been developed over many years from many diverse lines of inquiry.
There are legitimate areas of scientific debate over the best methodologies to apply in reconstructing historic temperatures, as there are in many topics of current scientific interest. However, the essential points of the Mann et al. study.that the late twentieth century likely included the warmest decades in the last millennium.are supported by numerous other studies. We refer the committee to the full reports by the IPCC, the 2001 review of the Third Assessment report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the June 7 statement from the NAS and other leading science academies for balanced assessments of the current state of the science.

We also note that much of the information that you have requested from the scientists involved is unrelated to the stated purpose of your investigation. Requests to provide all working materials related to hundreds of publications stretching back decades can be seen as intimidation.intentional or not.and thereby risks compromising the independence of scientific opinion that is vital to the preeminence of American science as well as to the flow of objective advice to the government.

Letter to Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield 2 7/15/2005

We welcome your interest in the science of climate change and hope that as a community, we can help your committee shape public policy in the light of the best available scientific knowledge.

Respectfully,

Michael Bender
Professor
Department of Geosciences
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
Member, National Academy of Sciences

Robert W. Corell
Senior Fellow
AMS Policy Program
American Meteorological Society
Washington, DC
Chair
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

Christopher B. Field
Director
Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Stanford, CA
Member, National Academy of Sciences

James E. Hansen
Director
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Columbia University Earth Institute
New York City, NY
Member, National Academy of Sciences

John P. Holdren
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA
Director, Woods Hole Research Center
President-Elect American Association for the Advancement of Science
Member, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
and American Academy of Arts and Sciences

[With 3 pages of scientists signing and copies to a long list of Congresspeople. ]

Realclimate.org chimes in:

http://www.realclimate.org/

***

Boomer Chick

07-19-2005, 11:29 PM

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Clinton+meets+Mandela&id=76181

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 (Johannesburg):

Former US president Bill Clinton today sounded a warning against the dangers of global warming, as he met young South Africans and Nelson Mandela.

"Not very far from you in the South Pole in the last 10 years, 12 chunks of ice the size of Rhode Island have broken off," Clinton told volunteers with City Year South Africa, a youth community service organization supported by his foundation.

"If this continues for another couple of decades, part of South Africa will be under water, and we will lose 50 feet of Manhattan Island in New York."

Clinton is on a six-nation tour in Africa to check on projects funded by his foundation and attend a lecture marking Mandela's 87th birthday. (AP)

magistre

07-20-2005, 12:41 AM

Boomer Chick

07-20-2005, 11:48 AM

:rolleyes:
Have you seen the map that projects what would happen if the ocean level rose by only 3 feet (I think)? We lose tho entire state of Florida and northern Missisipi and Alabama become beachfront property.

Yes, and I wonder about other low lying coastal areas in the world, too. As the earth warms, the atmospheric systems activate, evaporation of the waters increases, and so the closed system that is our very thin biosphere may actually continue to return the water to the continents which wouldn't be so bad. I suspect another small ice age after an interval of warm up, though. Who am I though?

We will adapt, even if the sea levels rise.

Governors meeting in Utah and some highlights:

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23608/

;)

magistre

07-20-2005, 02:04 PM

Yes, and I wonder about other low lying coastal areas in the world, too. As the earth warms, the atmospheric systems activate, evaporation of the waters increases, and so the closed system that is our very thin biosphere may actually continue to return the water to the continents which wouldn't be so bad. I suspect another small ice age after an interval of warm up, though. Who am I though?

We will adapt, even if the sea levels rise.

Governors meeting in Utah and some highlights:

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/23608/

;)

It is almost as if we were observing a living organism(yes,I know that we actually are) that being inundated with fresh water is throwing it off and when it continues to be returned to the oceans the only "choice" the ecosystem will have will be to create another ice-age. But I'm afraid this one will be massive. Remember,the Earth must cleanse itself of the "virus" (mankind) it has contracted.

Boomer Chick

07-20-2005, 03:11 PM

It is almost as if we were observing a living organism(yes,I know that we actually are) that being inundated with fresh water is throwing it off and when it continues to be returned to the oceans the only "choice" the ecosystem will have will be to create another ice-age. But I'm afraid this one will be massive. Remember,the Earth must cleanse itself of the "virus" (mankind) it has contracted.

;) I don't agree that our Mother Earth will cleanse itself of the human species.... so called a virus. No not at all!

I know movies portray just a scenario, but there truly are so many more scenarios you have to consider. Besides, did humans totally become extinct during the previous ice ages? Even if a polar shift happens, and I mean an axis shift, not an electro-magnetic shift, humans will survive. We all die anyway, so know that the overall plan is for our overall spiritual good. And because I believe in God, more superior species watching, and the realm of angelic beings -- I say that we can't possibly know the overall future. But I know this, that if we do care, if we do care and love one another and our environment, that we can overcome and adapt and many of us will survive in body.

Global Warming and Film Conference: International Experts Meet to Discuss Upcoming Film on Global Warming

(PRWEB) July 20, 2005 -- The Johnson Foundation will host a meeting of scientists, filmmakers, policy analysts, and foundation representatives to generate recommendations for an upcoming film on global warming based on the Venetian screenplay, WATERMARK. The meeting will be held at The Johnson Foundations’s Wingspread facility in Racine, Wisconsin, from July 22 – 24, 2005.

The experts will discuss the effects of global warming on international coastal cities using the Venetian screenplay WATERMARK as a centerpiece for discussion.

WATERMARK, a romantic drama, tells the fictional story of an American marine biologist and an Italian engineer who are passionately driven to save Venice, Italy, from sinking, but with opposite solutions. The film explores the real life problems facing the famed city, which is threatened by further devastating sinkage this century due to a combination of factors, particularly the rising of the seas, worsened by global warming. WATERMARK examines the proposed solution - the retractable dam project (MOSE) - and the controversy involving the hazards it poses to the lagoon ecosystem and global ecological balance. Film production is slated for 2006 by Bongiorno Productions, Emmy nominated, award-winning filmmakers, Marylou Tibaldo-Bongiorno and Jerome Bongiorno.

The Johnson Foundation regularly sponsors conferences in the public interest including topics dealing with Sustainable Development and the Environment at their Wingspread Conference Center. This is their first Film Conference.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/7/emw263152.htm

Boomer Chick

07-30-2005, 02:02 PM

For Jay !

I highly recommend the link as all references are active at the site and quite colorful as well! I pasted just to give you a sense of the article.

http://www.geocities.com/poncedeleon_1/ScientistsBackDown.htm

Climate Science Community Fails To
Back Key IPCC Finding!

(Note: this article is backed up by the assertions or lack of assertions by the scientists themselves, complete with links to their own words.)

(July 20, 2005)

Suddenly, scientists seem reluctant to assert that familiar sounding phrase:

"It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years".

Recently, the Climate Science Community responded to requests from a Congressional committee headed by Rep. Joe Barton that were directed at leading figures involved in creating and promoting the so called “Hockey Stick” graph.

Responses from three of the scientists and other groups have been published. Curiously, the language in these documents gives the distinct impression that the scientists no longer are prepared to defend one of two key findings of the study.

Those two findings are

Finding One:

“It is likely that the rate and duration of the warming of the 20th century is larger than any other time during the last 1,000 years."

(From the technical summary of the IPCC TAR) near bottom of page under “Surface temperatures during the pre-instrumental period from the proxy record”

Finding Two: (also from the technical summary of the IPCC TAR):

“The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year...”

Keep in mind that common sense suggests that the rate change of temperature is more important.

Responses show preference for Finding Two

A reading of the those published documents, available without a subscription, shows that when reference to Finding One does appear, the wording is treacherously ambiguous and when properly read does not specify that Finding One is backed up by other independent research.

First the quotes that refer to Finding Two:

Michael Mann’s response states: (page 9)

"Studies using these data and methodologies have confirmed the primary conclusion of our work (e.g. Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999) that the most recent decades were likely the warmest of the past 1000 years for the Northern Hemisphere on the average."

Note that nowhere in his reply does Dr. Mann refer to Finding One. Also it is odd that he should call Finding Two the “primary conclusion” since Finding Two is not about the rate change of temperature increase. (At least to the laymen’s ear)

July 13, AAAS letter :

"It should be added that the Mann et al. work was far from the only basis for the conclusion that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the last part of the 20th century were likely the warmest in 1000 years;”

Note that nowhere in this letter is Finding One referred to.

July 15 letter from US Scientists:

"However, the essential points of the Mann et al. studythat the late twentieth century likely included the warmest decades in the last millenniumare supported by numerous other studies.”

Note how they say "points" and only name the one point, again nowhere does the letter refer to Finding One.

Raymond S Bradley: (page one)

“Our research, and that of many others, suggests that mean temperatures in the northern hemisphere is, in fact, higher than any time in at least the last 1000 years.”

(Quote approximate because file seems set to prevent cut and paste)

Note no reference to Finding One in the response.

Now the quotes that refer to Finding One:

Malcolm K. Hughes (page one)

This finding [was] – that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year”. This finding did not rest solely on our work, as is made clear on page 133 in section 2.3.2.2 of the IPCC TAR volume – “Climate Change 2001:

Note that he is not saying that his study still supports his finding.

One can find a similar graph back to 1000 AD by Jones here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm

One can see the small group of scientists involved in these studies here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

July 7, EGU uses a twist: they use Finding One but with ambiguous language. Also, note that although the letter is addressed to Congress, unlike Mann, Bradley and Hughes, the EGU did not receive June 23 letters from Rep. Barton:

"With regard to the scientific questions addressed in the letters of June 23, we would like to point out that: (1) the scientific statements of the IPCC TAR, including the finding that the

[**]increase[**]

in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years”,

are based on multiple lines of evidence, not just the questioned study by Mann et al. (1998); and (2) the results of the study by Mann et al. (1998) have been confirmed by an independent team of scientists with freely available computer code and data (Ammann and Wahl, 2005) "

Note this is only one sentence!

The subject of the sentence is the findings of the TAR, not the finding specified (Finding One), thus the statement is true but does not say what it seems to say. It does not say that the finding with the "increase in the 20th century" language is based on multiple lines of evidence.

It also does not say that Ammann confirms the finding specified, only that some results were confirmed.

Crowley: Note this is from an article not a letter to Congress

“In those reconstructions, the twentieth century

warming stands well above Northern Hemisphere

temperature fl uctuations of the last

1000 years. Other investigators, using some of

the same data but with different approaches,

have also reconstructed temperatures of the

last millennium (see Mann et al. [2003] for a

summary discussion). In general, there is more

agreement than disagreement among the

various reconstructions. The differences stem

mainly from the scaling of the oscillations,

but in all cases the late twentieth century is

anomalous in a millennial context.”

Note that this seems to refer to Finding one, but it’s not a letter to Congress.

The links for the above article came from the RealClimate website operated by scientists connected with the “Hockey Stick” study and other scientists.

Much of the controversy over the “Hockey Stick” graph has been influenced by the hard work of Steve McIntyre on his ClimateAudit website.

People following this story may jump to the conclusion that the failure to back up Finding One is the result of concern over claims made by McIntyre. This may only be part of the story, or even not the case.

Recent Studies by Anders Moberg (2005) and Hans Von Storch (2004) appear to undercut Finding one. See figure four at the following link and note that Moberg’s graphs shows much more rapid temperature change than the Hockey Stick graph in the pre-industrial era:

Hockey Stick R.I.P. from World Climate Report

************************************************** **********************

So there you have it, scientists are shying away from Finding One, yet some are still trying to promote it, even though it has apparently been refuted.

************************************************** ***************************************

The author is a Climate Change and Math hobbyist with a degree in Technology.

No compensation of any kind is received or accepted for these activities including this web page.

The contents of this page are public domain.

************************************************** ***************************************

Here are some useful links for learning more:

ClimateAudit

ClimateAudit article on the responses

RealClimate article on responses.

(Note the links to the other responses that were available without a subscription did not seem to have any reference to either Finding One or finding Two.)

UKweatherworld Climatology forum

Debunkers forum

Six tenths of a degree Celcius increase by 2100

(Energy imbalance research April 28, 2005)

Climate Change Science Realism Versus Alarmism

(Links to other story Forums, Blogs, IPCC, Wikipedia )

Boomer Chick

07-30-2005, 02:49 PM

Excellent link for paleo climatology: LOTS O' STUFF !!!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

Boomer Chick

07-30-2005, 03:42 PM

SOLAR WON INCENTIVES AND CREDIT FOR CONSUMERS

With the Senate's approval vote today of 74-26 and a successful House vote of 275-156 on Thursday, the energy bill is officially on its way to the President's desk to be signed into law.

Despite the many proclamations from lawmakers that the bill could help lower gas prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of energy, the bill will do little to alleviate either. And, it will offer few immediate or tangible benefits for the average U.S. citizen.

"If I was a homeowner and flipping through a newspaper story on the energy bill, I would get pretty depressed at the $14 billion of giveaways for industries that, frankly, are enjoying record profits," said Rhone Resch, Executive Director of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "But the one provision in the bill that all Americans can take advantage of right away is to install solar on their roofs."

For the first time in two decades solar technologies were granted a federal investment tax credit that will promote all forms of solar energy. This includes solar thermal systems that provide for a home's hot water, photovoltaic systems that provide electric power, solar-hybrid lighting technologies and even to the commercial developers of industrial-scale Concentrating Solar Power plants of the likes that were constructed in the California Desert in the late '70s and early '80s.

Specifically, the bill increases the existing 10 percent investment tax credit for commercial solar installations to 30 percent for two years with no cap on the amount of the credit. This applies to all property placed in service after December 31, 2005 and before January 1, 2008; credit reverts to the permanent 10 percent credit thereafter.

What could have the most impact for typical Americans, the bill also creates a new 30 percent tax credit for residential solar installations for two years; capped at $2000; applied to all property placed in service after December 31, 2005 and before January 1, 2008. Likewise, all solar technologies will be eligible but solar thermal, and solar PV are expected to make the most gains.

"If consumers have been waiting for a tax credit for solar, now is the time to do it," Resch said. "It coincides perfectly with electricity and natural gas prices skyrocketing, and if you think prices will do down, you're mistaken."

A number of other provisions included in the final bill that will greatly benefit solar, including federal loan guarantees for large-scale "innovative technologies," government solar purchase authorizations and energy service performance contracts.

Other items that can have an immediate and tangible impact for consumers across the U.S. are tax breaks for investments in energy efficiency appliances and an extension of a $2000 hybrid vehicle tax break.

The solar tax credit may appear small in relation to the majority of the bill's focus on the traditional fossil and nuclear industries but it's a major victory for solar and possibly a sign of shifting attitudes towards solar.

"I can't emphasize how much this is a huge precedent for the solar industry," said Resch who added that fuel cells were the only other non-traditional energy technology to gain a 30 percent investment tax credit.

"I had folks from Exxon coming up and saying 'how did you do this' and 'you came out of left field,'" Resch said.

And how they did it was to intensely focus the solar lobbying effort like it's rarely, if ever, been done before. Resch said the solar industry has traditionally been a fractured industry, unable to agree on a specific and focused set of policy goals. He took lessons and experience he learned in his time prior to SEIA when he was Senior Vice President of the Natural Gas Supply Association. He knew if solar was to gain anything out of this energy bill they would all have to agree on one policy goal.

"People sometimes expect for us in the solar industry to come out with that fractured face," Resch said. "It was a massive team effort where the entire solar industry pulled together to make this happen. It was the singular massage, that's why we got the 30 percent."

Solar provisions that would benifit all forms of solar were not included in any of the previous congressional efforts to enact an energy bill. Resch said the inclusion of this credit shows recognition that Congress feels that solar is an important part of the energy mix and that they want to see it grow.

At least one Congressman aggress.

"The 30 percent solar credit for consumers is great news for this nation's future energy independence," said Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), a key negotiator of the final energy bill. "This provision will one day be viewed as the most significant renewable energy policy shift in more than two decades. Consumers driving the industry to meet high expectations and pushing the nation toward self-reliance will produce far greater results than other incentives aimed at producers and utilities."
***

Yes, it's the pony in the pile of shit, but it's a start !!!! We're going solar!

DvdGStwrt

08-01-2005, 01:16 PM

Hey let me throw in Straw bale construction in the mix - just for fun :D

Boomer Chick

08-01-2005, 05:43 PM

When Sun's Too Strong, Plankton Make Clouds

07.02.04

People say size doesn't matter, and that may be true for tiny plankton, those free-floating ocean plants that make up the bottom of the marine food-chain. Little plankton may be able to change the weather, and longer term climate, in ways that serve them better.

Image to right: Phytoplankton can be identified by satellite through their chlorophyll (light green). This image is a composite from the Northern Hemisphere spring seasons of 1998-2004. Click on image to enlarge. Credit: NASA/GSFC and ORBIMAGE

It's almost hard to believe, but new NASA-funded research confirms an old theory that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun's harmful rays. The study was conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).

The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. UV light also gives sunburn to humans.

When plankton are bothered, or stressed by UV light, their chemistry takes over.

Image to left: New NASA-funded research confirms an old theory that ocean-dwelling microscopic single-celled organisms called plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun's harmful rays. Click on image to view movie. (1.9 MB) Credit: NASA

The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP, which some scientists believe helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS.

DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun's harmful UV rays.

Image to right: The Sargasso sea is an irregularly-shaped region in the Atlantic Ocean that is set apart, not by the presence of land masses, but by vast expanses of seaweed, called Sargassum, that float on its surface utilizing small balloon-like floats. Credit: NASA

DMS levels peak from June through the end of September. Surprisingly, plankton levels are at a minimum during this time. That means that the number of plankton does not affect how much DMS they produce. During the summer, the study found that a whopping 77 percent of the changes in amounts of DMS were due to exposure to UV radiation. The researchers found it amazing that a single factor could have such a big affect on this process.

"For someone studying marine biology and ecology, this type of variation is absolutely incredible," Siegel said.

The researchers were also surprised to find that the DMS molecules completely refresh themselves after only three to five days. That means the plankton may react to UV rays quickly enough to impact their own weather. Toole and Siegel were surprised by the lightning-fast rate of turnover for DMS.

Image to left: The Sargasso Sea is a region of slow-moving ocean currents surrounded by rapidly-moving ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream to its east. It is located off the coast of Bermuda. In this composite image of night-time city lights, you can see the bigger cities in the brighter areas. Click on image to enlarge. Credit: NASA, DOD

The next step for the researchers will be to see how much the added clouds from plankton actually impact climate. By figuring out how plankton react to light, scientists now have the information they need to use computer models to recreate the impacts of plankton on cloud cover. Since the white clouds can reflect sunlight back out to space, the researchers believe the plankton-made clouds may have some affect on global temperatures.

The study was funded by NASA. Studies of DMS have been funded by the National Science Foundation.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html

This confirms my point in the discussion on the other thread. In fact, plankton under stress create more clouds than actually dry the atmosphere. Another example of nature's balancing systems. Cloud production changes the environment and to that end, the scientists study how cloud production not only protects plankton but how it affects other atmospheric systems.

Boomer Chick

08-01-2005, 07:05 PM

14 July 2004
UV Light Turns Plankton Into Cloud Factories
Much like Dr. Evil's weather control machine, plankton may be able to change the weather, and longer term climate, in ways to benefit the tiny organism. New research confirms a theory that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun's harmful UV rays. The study was conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the University of California (UCSB).

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040614015421data_trunc_sys.shtml

***

Plankton Affect The Weather And Climate
UV light also gives sunburn to humans. When plankton are bothered, or stressed
by UV light, their chemistry takes over. ...
www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_993.shtml

***

When Sun’s Too Strong, Plankton Make Clouds
This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays. ...
Also, the shallow upper layer exposes the plankton to more UV light. ...
www.innovations-report.de/html/ berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-31166.html

***
Where are plankton most affected at this time?

Effects of the ozone hole in Antarctica have already been seen in some of the organisms. Most of the Antarctic organisms have a low tolerance for UV radiation since for most of the year, hardly any direct sunlight reaches the continent. With the reduced ozone in springtime, UV-B radiation has been able to penetrate the atmosphere with a higher intensity. Already, on the base of the Antarctica food chain, an impact has been felt. UV-B radiation has already reduced the plankton populations by between 6% and 12%. Consequently, species higher up have felt the impact.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Fact_Sheets/Key_Stage_4/Ozone_Depletion/14.html

***

What kinds of effects does UV radiation have on nature?

The Finns weight in:

http://www.fmi.fi/research_atmosphere/atmosphere_2.html#8

The greatest risks connected with the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere are ecological. Exposure tests made in USA and Australia have showed that over one hundred species are sensitive to changes in UV radiation, most important of these being the soy bean and a particular pine (loblolly pine) growing in USA. The University of Oulu has investigated the impact of UV radiation on coniferous trees. It has been noted that differences between trees growing in different areas are extremely large. For example, a pine brought from the Kola Peninsula began to grow better than before after receiving boosted UV radiation, whereas the needles of a pine from Kittilä began to shrink under the same treatment. Old needles are able to protect themselves by strengthening the wax coating the outermost layer of their needles and by increasing the amount of protective pigment. In contrast to this, young growing needles suffer easily.

On a global scale, half of the carbon annually bound up in biological assimilation is produced by plankton in oceanic ecosystems. In this way, plankton maintains the basic production of the oceanic food chain. The tolerance of plankton to UV radiation has been found to be very variable, depending on species, which may lead to a disturbance of the balance between separate species. At present, research concerning the impact of UV radiation on oceanic ecosystems is still in its infancy.

International research has revealed that some species of rice suffer from even minor increases in UV radiation, while other species capable of tolerating even intense radiation have also been found. With the help of research, as well as the efficient breeding and cultivation of strong species it will be possible to be prepared for years with a considerably decreased prevailing level of ozone level.

***

Fascinating defense mechanisms to UV Rays in Plankton! MAA's !

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1To59yt0hYcJ:www.imarest.org/scientist/article2.pdf+plankton+UV+&hl=en

***

Regarding Ocean Acidity: Also supports my claim that acidity affects biological systems as well as UV, especially regarding the shell creating creatures and certain species of phytoplankton:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169#more-169

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

The Royal Society has just issued a summary report on the effects of CO2 on the pH chemistry of seawater and aquatic organisms and ecosystems. In addition to its pivotal role in the atmosphere in the regulation of global climate, CO2 and its sister chemical species, HCO3- and CO32- comprise the carbonate buffer system which regulates the pH of seawater. The new report can be found here. Acidifying the ocean is particularly detrimental to organisms that secrete shell material made of CaCO3, such as coral reefs and a type of phytoplankton called coccolithophorids [Kleypas et al., 1999]. The ocean pH change will persist for thousands of years. Because the fossil fuel CO2 rise is faster than natural CO2 increases in the past, the ocean will be acidified to a much greater extent than has occurred naturally in at least the past 800,000 years [Caldeira and Wicket, 2003].

read more at realclimate

Comment on same page:

Why should we be concerned? Another way to put it: as reported by the New York Times British Scientists Say Carbon Dioxide Is Turning the Oceans Acidic,

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels ... pointed out that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had been higher for 90 million of the last 100 million years.

But Dr. Ken Caldeira, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif., and a member of the Royal Society panel, said the difference was that the current carbon dioxide release was occurring quickly, over just two centuries. In the past, water from the deeper ocean would have had time to mix, diluting the effect of the carbon dioxide. "If we put it out over a few hundred thousand years, we'd have nothing to worry about," he said.

So, there it is.

CO2 seems to be affecting the ecosystems. Plankton tends to respond to UV rays by producing clouds, so the delicate balance of nature has certainly tipped.

Boomer Chick

08-01-2005, 08:12 PM

Better link for ocean acidity studies:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249

BTW, read the commentary below the acidic ocean article on Real Climate. Quite interesting!

BC ;)

Boomer Chick

08-01-2005, 08:41 PM

Hey let me throw in Straw bale construction in the mix - just for fun :D

Yeah, let's make a straw bale yurt for a guest/storage house! :D

foot_soldier

08-01-2005, 08:51 PM

The replacement of cold-water plankton by more tropical species has been observed for quite some time now in the North Sea and in the Pacific off the northwest US coast. Sea-surface temperatures are documented to be increasing in these regions. The traditional food chains in these regions are being disrupted; species (fish, birds, etc.) which depend on the displaced species of plankton are directly observed to be dying of starvation. The reports are out there.

Sea-surface warming favors release of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere rather than uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I think any reasonable person who is taking the time to educate themselves regarding what is being directly observed by the research community would have to conclude that we had better start taking the increasingly documented incidence of regional marine ecosystem collapse seriously.

Anyone who thinks events of this nature will have no effect on them is sadly mistaken. Sooner or later we will all be affected if we continue to insist on the "right" to generate more waste than our marine and atmospheric systems can process. Regional marine ecosystem deterioration is already disrupting the lives of thousands of people who depend on the health of these systems for their survival.

foot_soldier

08-01-2005, 10:56 PM

The process can be a little time-consuming to say the least but it really pays to capture and save certain documentation as it appears. A little history on direct observation of plankton depletion and its impact on marine ecosystems:

August 26, 2002
Plunging plankton levels may be disastrous
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=946502002

GLOBAL warming is being accelerated by a massive drop in the tiny organisms that absorb CO2 in the North Atlantic, NASA satellites have revealed.

The latest results are highly significant and could help explain some of the decline in fish stocks and weather changes.

They are based on a 20-year snapshot of the ocean which has seen phytoplankton levels drop by 14 per cent in the North Atlantic and 30 per cent in the North Pacific.

Phytoplankton serve as food to other species so any reduction in their level ultimately affects the numbers of fish in the sea. Phytoplankton also currently account for half the transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere back into the biosphere by photosynthesis - a process in which plants absorb CO2 from the air for growth. Since CO2 acts as a heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, phytoplanton helps reduce the rate it accumulates and may mitigate global warming.

Scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) say warmer ocean temperatures and low winds may be depriving the tiny ocean plants of nutrients.

Images from NASA’s Nimbus 7 satellite taken between 1979 and 1986 were compared to those taken by the OrbView 2 satellite from 1997 to 2000. The images were also supplemented with information from ocean buoys and research vessels.

The results showed that phytoplankton levels have declined substantially since the 1980s.

However, at the same time phytoplankton levels in open water areas near the equator have increased significantly - by more than 50 per cent - but since most phytoplankton is concentrated in the north there was an overall decrease globally.

The authors of the study, Watson Gregg of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre and Margarita Conkright of NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Centre, also discovered what appears to be an association between more recent regional climate changes - higher sea surface temperatures and reductions in surface winds - and areas where phytoplankton levels have dropped.

A warmer ocean surface layer reduces mixing with cooler, deeper nutrient-rich waters. A reduction in winds can also limit the availability of nutrients being stirred up to generate more phytoplankton. However, the scientists still do not know if the loss of phytoplankton, which thrive on sunlight and nutrients, is a long-term trend or a climate cycle.

Since the whole ocean food chain depends on phytoplankton, a significant change could indicate a shift in our climate.

One of the world’s leading marine scientists, Dr Martin Angel, said the findings were "very important".

Dr Angel, UK co-ordinator of the International Year of the Ocean, said he was now convinced global warming was happening and man was a major cause.

Dr Angel, who believes deep sea fishing should be banned in at least a third of oceans, said the decline in phytoplankton had massive implications not just for the climate but also for the whole ecosystem, including fishing.

July 12, 2004
Climate warning from the deep
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3879841.stm

Strange things are happening in the North Sea. Cod stocks are slumping faster than over-fishing can account for, and Mediterranean species like red mullet are migrating north.

Several sea birds are also in trouble. Kittiwake numbers are falling fast and guillemots are struggling to breed.

And, earlier this summer, hundreds of fulmar (a relative of the albatross) corpses washed up on the Norfolk coast, having apparently starved to death.

Scientists suspect these events are linked and they are trying to work out how.

Nothing is certain yet, but some believe a dramatic change in North Sea plankton is responsible. And, what is more, they blame global warming.

Global changes

Plankton are microscopic free-floating marine organisms. Globally they are of vital importance.

Phyto-plankton (tiny plants) are behind 50% of the Earth's photosynthesis. And, along with zoo-plankton (tiny animals), they form the base of the whole ocean food web.

But, over the last 20 years, these little organisms have been undergoing a radical shake-up in the North Sea.

Broadly speaking, as global temperatures rise, cold water species are moving out and warm water species are moving in.

"The North Sea was a cold temperate ecosystem in the 1980s, but since the 1990s it has changed into a warm temperate ecosystem," explained Martin Edwards, of the Sir Alistair Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS), Plymouth, UK.

"So all the cold water species of plankton have moved much further north, and they are being replaced by more sub-tropical species."..... (continued)

Boomer Chick

08-02-2005, 11:05 AM

FS,

The minor thesis of plankton's lower populations in this article fails to mention UV rays. It states that ocean temperature and low winds have affected the plants' growth. That's a new and rather general theory. The major thesis states that the dimishing CO2 sink caused by declining plankton populations will cause more warming of the atmosphere. Does the warming of the atmosphere actually warm the seas? What caused the warming of the ocean waters if warming is the main factor along with low winds to the plankton's thriving?

Scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) say warmer ocean temperatures and low winds may be depriving the tiny ocean plants of nutrients.

Images from NASA’s Nimbus 7 satellite taken between 1979 and 1986 were compared to those taken by the OrbView 2 satellite from 1997 to 2000. The images were also supplemented with information from ocean buoys and research vessels.

This temperature notion contrasts with the following and also complements it in terms of UV's ability to heat water columns. UV has been constant given that the sun's rays have remained constant but the decrease in ozone hole protection has affected the population.

UV-B radiation has already reduced the plankton populations by between 6% and 12%.

I have found more detailed information about plankton from scientific sites, so I find this article from the Scotsman not up to par. It lacks scientific specificity and updated information.
Here's a comment given by a marine biologist by education and avocation. I find his quite inclusive read on the oceanic biologic systems far more inclusive and cognizant of all factors impinging on sea life adaptation to CO2, acidification, and UV as a related factor, as well as temperature.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169#more-169

$47. My undergraduate degree was BS Marine Biology and I have been away from the field for several years, but I have kept up with the developments in marine biology.

The acidification of the oceans by anthropogenic CO2 does what any new discovery does in science, it brings up a series of new questions.

The direct chemical effect of CO2 on ecosystems is only one of several anthropogenic pressures on the ocean ecosystem. The anthropogenic effects include overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction and introduced species. Anthropogenic climate change will mean an increased average temperature for the oceans and possible changes in current systems that could locally amplify or reduce warming and can alter nutrient cycling resulting in changes in the amount of nutrients available for the growth of phytoplankton, the plant plankton that are the base of the food chain.

How all these effects will combine and impact the ocean ecosystem is an important but unresolved question. Will there be no combined effect (i.e. for the sake of argument lets say warming alone causes 10% mortality in a species population and acidification alone causes 10% mortality but combined warming and acidification still have just a 10% total mortality), a simple combined effect (10% warming + 10% acidification = 20%), or a multiplicative effect (10% warming alone and 10% acidification alone but when combined 50% mortality)?

Environmental changes like changes in ph in the oceans have occurred in the past and plants and animals have reacted to these changes. Adaptation to changed conditions does occur. This is basic evolutionary theory. When conditions change, some individuals within a population of a single species have genetic differences that give them the ability to survive the changes and they pass these characteristics to the next generation. However evolution theory also shows that many species are not able to adapt to environmental changes and become extinct.

A rapid rate of reproduction could mean a population can rapidly accumulate the genetic mutations that allow a species to adapt to a rapid environmental change. This would make it more likely for a species to survive a rapid change. However the fossil record still shows that even rapidly reproducing organisms have at times not been able to adapt and have gone extinct.

Many types of phytoplankton do increase their numbers rapidly but they propagate primarily by asexual reproduction, which makes it less likely for populations to accumulate the genetic mutations that could allow them to adapt. Complex marine organisms like fish usually have many offspring at each spawning event and because of this it is sometimes assumed that their rate of reproduction is rapid. This is not necessarily so. Most marine animals have large amounts of small and poorly developed offspring and do not exercise any parental care. Very few offspring survive but this is balanced out by having large numbers of offspring. The net result is under natural conditions these animals do not reproduce rapidly. Because they do not reproduce rapidly they are less likely to adapt to rapid environmental changes.

The effects on the ocean ecosystem cannot be determined only by examining individual species. This would assume that each type of organism is a completely separate entity, but in marine ecosystems there is a high degree of interdependence. If something happens to a population of one species other species and sometimes entire ecosystems can be effected. Acidification may negatively effect only a few species, but a reduced population of these species could have effects on other species that are otherwise uneffected by the increased acidity.

There are a lot of issues and the answers are unclear at the present time but are being examined. There were a handful of papers in Science and Nature in the past year or so that have examined the ecological effects of anthropogenic climate change on ocean ecosystems. There will be effects on the ocean ecosystem but it is unclear exactly what the effects and just how serious they will be.

Comment by Joseph O’Sullivan — 10 Jul 2005 @ 9:49 pm

To go return to my concern with ocean temperature rises and what the latest science has found at this time:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/PDF/PAPERS/grlheat05.pdf

I haven't read it all yet, but somehow my logic brings me to CO2 as the second determining factor of the rise in ocean temperature. The first may be geologic in nature. Now this is only a hunch on my part, but just thinking about water and air physics, the amount of time it takes for ocean temperature to rise in light of the gargantuan amounts of water and the various systems at work regarding winds, UV, air temp, clouds production, rain, snow, ice, salinity, etc. just leads me to suspect that other factors beneath the ocean might also and more directly contribute and not just the atmospheric and surface interactions. I could be wrong.

foot_soldier

08-02-2005, 10:33 PM

.....The minor thesis of plankton's lower populations in this article fails to mention UV rays. It states that ocean temperature and low winds have affected the plants' growth. That's a new and rather general theory.....
Actually it isn't "new" at all. It's based on fundamental principles of marine chemistry and physics according to a close friend of mine with a Masters in Oceanography. I'm not trying to be difficult here.

.....I have found more detailed information about plankton from scientific sites, so I find this article from the Scotsman not up to par. It lacks scientific specificity and updated information....
The Scotsman article is one in a series of several over the last couple of years the point of which is to report to the lay public what is being directly observed in both the North Sea and in the Pacific off the northwest coast of the US. These articles are not intended to provide the kinds of detailed data that interested parties can fairly easily locate in the actual literature. In my view these articles serve the very important purpose of providing continuity of documentation in the Direct Observation department.

.....My undergraduate degree was BS Marine Biology and I have been away from the field for several years, but I have kept up with the developments in marine biology.

The acidification of the oceans by anthropogenic CO2 does what any new discovery does in science, it brings up a series of new questions.

The direct chemical effect of CO2 on ecosystems is only one of several anthropogenic pressures on the ocean ecosystem. The anthropogenic effects include overfishing, pollution, habitat destruction and introduced species. Anthropogenic climate change will mean an increased average temperature for the oceans and possible changes in current systems that could locally amplify or reduce warming and can alter nutrient cycling resulting in changes in the amount of nutrients available for the growth of phytoplankton, the plant plankton that are the base of the food chain...and so on.....
I've read a number of this guy's comments and find them very helpful. What he's doing at RealClimate is a little more comprehensive than what can be accomplished in a media venue intended for the lay public, however. O'Sullivan is certainly correct when he writes:

.....There are a lot of issues and the answers are unclear at the present time but are being examined. There were a handful of papers in Science and Nature in the past year or so that have examined the ecological effects of anthropogenic climate change on ocean ecosystems. There will be effects on the ocean ecosystem but it is unclear exactly what the effects and just how serious they will be.....
It is the scientific process that is going to continue to quantify and clarify the factors that are driving what is currently being directly observed in the above-referenced regions wherein marine ecology appears to be deteriorating. The keyword is process, which implies an active, continuous gathering of objective data and close collaboration with others who are similarly engaged.

That said, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable at this late date, given what is already known, to conclude that escalating atmospheric CO2, elevated UV-b over northern mid-latitudes and directly measurable regional sea-surface warming are all implicated where documentation of regional marine ecosystem deterioration is concerned. Coastal nutrient (pollutant) runoff and overfishing are also major drivers of declining marine health, no question about it.

.....I haven't read it all yet, but somehow my logic brings me to CO2 as the second determining factor of the rise in ocean temperature. The first may be geologic in nature.....
This is a .pdf file and it will take me a few days to get into it, print it out, etc. I will nonetheless do that. I'm assuming this material concerns undersea volcanic activity. There may well be something to that.

.....Now this is only a hunch on my part, but just thinking about water and air physics, the amount of time it takes for ocean temperature to rise in light of the gargantuan amounts of water and the various systems at work regarding winds, UV, air temp, clouds production, rain, snow, ice, salinity, etc. just leads me to suspect that other factors beneath the ocean might also and more directly contribute and not just the atmospheric and surface interactions. I could be wrong.....
I see your point. "It's a Big Ocean."

But it's important to remember that each layer of the ocean (along with each layer's own plant, animal and microbial ecology) has its own subtle set of physical and chemical attributes and its own particular function relative to The Whole. It is in the euphotic zone, the sensitive upper layer of the water column that the impact of atmospheric CO2 and incoming UV-b have the most direct and important ramifications vis a vis plankton. Also, the position and behavior of the organisms in the euphotic zone are directly influenced by the action of wind (primarily a surface phenomenon) and waves.

On another note, it's also easy to think "It's a Big Atmosphere" and that what's going on almost non-stop at commercial passenger airline cruise altitude in the northern hemisphere these days is of negligible consequence in the scheme of things. The truth is that the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere is also a very sensitive layer - and that what goes on there has a major, cumulative impact on the regions above and below it. The health of boundary layers (for example marine/atmosphere and upper troposphere/lower stratosphere) is very important relative to the health of The Whole.

foot_soldier

08-03-2005, 12:59 AM

.....Does the warming of the atmosphere actually warm the seas?.....
August 3, 2005

Fossil Fuels May Decrease Earth's Natural Capacity to Store Carbon

Rising fossil fuel emissions may actually decrease the Earth's natural capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a newly published study--which means that the warming of Earth's climate could accelerate even faster than scientists have anticipated.
http://i-newswire.com/pr39907.html

(I-Newswire) - The study, which was posted on-line this week by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on a new computer simulation of the global carbon cycle developed by Inez Fung of the University of California at Berkeley and her colleagues, with support from the National Science Foundation ( NSF )'s climate dynamics program.

Fung and her coworkers put particular emphasis on modeling how carbon dioxide emissions affect the strength and capacity of the environment's natural carbon repositories, including plants, soil, rain, clouds, bacteria, phytoplankton and oceans. The researchers also used observations from the past two centuries to project the coming century.

Their major finding was an inverse relationship between the rate at which carbon dioxide is emitted from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, and the capacity of land and ocean to absorb that carbon dioxide: the faster the emissions, the less effective were the carbon sinks.

There are a number of reasons for this, Fung explains. In the ocean, for example, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere mixes fairly rapidly into the upper layers, down to about 100 meters (this would be the euphotic zone where plankton live) or so. Then from there it slowly leaks into the deep ocean, where it will stay sequestered for centuries. But rising global temperatures warm the upper layers and make the ocean more stratified, so that the carbon dioxide has a tougher time mixing further downward.

On land, meanwhile, climate warming tends to dry out the tropics and reduce plant growth there, which in turn reduces the rate of photosynthesis and carbon uptake.

Taking all the effects together, says Fung, "our finding implies that carbon storage by the oceans and land will lag farther and farther behind as climate change accelerates with growing carbon dioxide emissions, creating an amplifying loop between the carbon and climate systems."

The team's model used the low range of temperature increases for the 21st century, predicting a rise of 1.4 degrees Centigrade for a "business-as-usual" fossil fuel emission scenario. Overall, said Fung, the model agrees with others predicting large ecosystem changes, especially in the tropics.

"Carbon exchange among Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land, and its relationship to climate, is one of the most challenging issues in environmental sciences today," said Jay Fein, director of NSF's climate dynamics program. "Fung's results have important implications for future potential climate changes: climate warming would increase the airborne part of carbon dioxide derived from human activities, and would in effect amplify climate change."

DvdGStwrt

08-03-2005, 02:58 AM

There are a number of reasons for this, Fung explains. In the ocean, for example, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere mixes fairly rapidly into the upper layers, down to about 100 meters (this would be the euphotic zone where plankton live) or so. Then from there it slowly leaks into the deep ocean, where it will stay sequestered for centuries. But rising global temperatures warm the upper layers and make the ocean more stratified, so that the carbon dioxide has a tougher time mixing further downward.

That was a bit interesting.

I'll have to dig through my magazines, I think I have an old omni mag (yes that old) that said similar. It was just a theory back then 1980 something.

If I recall correctly it also applied to methane (deep pressurized methane deposits under strattified layers of the ocean).

Insurrectionchemistry

08-03-2005, 04:25 PM

F_S = A+

Boomer Chick

08-03-2005, 04:42 PM

Actually it isn't "new" at all. It's based on fundamental principles of marine chemistry and physics according to a close friend of mine with a Masters in Oceanography. I'm not trying to be difficult here.

OH! According to your friend, this is not new information for me? Isn't it rather general, however? Of course I understand the temperature factor, which holds true for many marine species, and again, I find both temperature and winds quite basic and relatively new in my own research on plankton. Perhaps I should have spoken more personally.

FS:
[quote] The Scotsman article is one in a series of several over the last couple of years the point of which is to report to the lay public what is being directly observed in both the North Sea and in the Pacific off the northwest coast of the US. These articles are not intended to provide the kinds of detailed data that interested parties can fairly easily locate in the actual literature. In my view these articles serve the very important purpose of providing continuity of documentation in the Direct Observation department.

Of course I realize what genre this kind of article presents and to what audience, but for our purposes here, we need to focus on more detailed research. Often these kinds of articles in their general statements fail to condition those statements with other research and other related factors. They leave out too much and lead the ignorant public into assumptions and even old research that might prove partly correct, but not solely correct in its attributions to plankton.For example there was no mention of particular affected plankton populations, UV, or the plankton's ability to adapt and create clouds, nor the larger variances in historic paleoclimatology references regarding past marine life fossils and their reflection of previous high CO2 and temperature rises in the past. The main thesis relates to CO2 absorptionand O2 production, but fails to explain the related conditioning factors. I stand my ground on its generalities and its lack of scientific specificity. Period.

I've read a number of this guy's comments and find them very helpful. What he's doing at RealClimate is a little more comprehensive than what can be accomplished in a media venue intended for the lay public, however. O'Sullivan is certainly correct when he writes:
[quote].....There are a lot of issues and the answers are unclear at the present time but are being examined. There were a handful of papers in Science and Nature in the past year or so that have examined the ecological effects of anthropogenic climate change on ocean ecosystems. There will be effects on the ocean ecosystem but it is unclear exactly what the effects and just how serious they will be..... [/COLOR]

And yes, I totally agree with him that many factors interrelate concerning marine life and the various factors affecting them.

It is the scientific process that is going to continue to quantify and clarify the factors that are driving what is currently being directly observed in the above-referenced regions wherein marine ecology appears to be deteriorating. The keyword is process, which implies an active, continuous gathering of objective data and close collaboration with others who are similarly engaged.

Why of course. And that would include atmospheric/oceanic/pollutant factors as all relate and interchange in ways scientists just begin to understand.

That said, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable at this late date, given what is already known, to conclude that escalating atmospheric CO2, elevated UV-b over northern mid-latitudes and directly measurable regional sea-surface warming are all implicated where documentation of regional marine ecosystem deterioration is concerned. Coastal nutrient (pollutant) runoff and overfishing are also major drivers of declining marine health, no question about it.[/color]

Late date? Actually, the warming of the oceans and the information gathering at this time is in its infancy. Until a direct correlation between warming and CO2 is confirmed without a doubt, I would agree with your conclusion. CO2 itself does not directly affect the plankton or other sea creatures, rather its the theory that CO2 raises the water temp which in turn affects the marine life. UVb seems to have an affect as well, but as you failed to mention from the above studies and observations, the plankton actually create weather (probably not consciously but in regard to adaptation mechanisms) that protects them from the harshest UV exposure, which in itself is only seasonal. One of the articles mentioned the more direct UV ray and more intense rays at the equator and that the plankton in the equatorial region had adapted and was not at risk whatsoever even given the more direct and more intense rays due to adaptive mechanisms. As the marine biologist above reminded, the adaptation factor may in who-knows-what timeframe allow the plankton recoup its populations in the northern latitudes. And I would add that acidity, regarding my research article and the accompanying RealClimate article, also plays into marine life negative influences. I thought you would have read those acidity articles just to get a taste of the gist....Ph is very important, even within our own bodies. Sulfur cycles come into play in the acidity factor.

This is a .pdf file and it will take me a few days to get into it, print it out, etc. I will nonetheless do that. I'm assuming this material concerns undersea volcanic activity. There may well be something to that.

Actually it doesn't mention underwater volcanic activity, which I also supposed it would. Essentially its a composite of ocean temperature readings over time and with depth up to 3000 meters and the conclusions do not reveal anything beyond common sense at this point. It mentioned, however, that the Pacific ocean is actually cooling whereas in comparison the Atlantic is heating. Given that the Atlantic contains the geological fissure and tectonic plate creation-point, called the Mid-Atlantic ridge, which churns with volcanic activity, and given the ocean's circulatory patterns (the Gulf Stream), and the salinity factor regarding polar ice melt, I can see why that water body has heated, rather than cooled, overall, yet when one considers the cooling factor associated with the Gulf Stream slowing, one wonders if the slowing of the Gulf Stream is in fact a direct response and balancing system to the rising oceanic temperatures. That, of course, is my layman's supposition and not confirmed by any scientific paper at this time. If CO2 is responsible for ocean temperature rises, then how do the uneven temperature gradients between the Pacific and Atlantic account? Is the concentration of CO2 greater over the Atlantic than the Pacific? What accounts for the discrepency?

Boomer Chick

08-03-2005, 04:49 PM

I see your point. "It's a Big Ocean."

But it's important to remember that each layer of the ocean (along with each layer's own plant, animal and microbial ecology) has its own subtle set of physical and chemical attributes and its own particular function relative to The Whole. It is in the euphotic zone, the sensitive upper layer of the water column that the impact of atmospheric CO2 and incoming UV-b have the most direct and important ramifications vis a vis plankton. Also, the position and behavior of the organisms in the euphotic zone are directly influenced by the action of wind (primarily a surface phenomenon) and waves.

Yes, I see that. But I was referring to the oceans volume and mixing ability as a factor in temperature, not a factor in the sea life. Of course the surface waters exposed to sunlight would contain the plant life and nutrients available for marine food chains.

On another note, it's also easy to think "It's a Big Atmosphere" and that what's going on almost non-stop at commercial passenger airline cruise altitude in the northern hemisphere these days is of negligible consequence in the scheme of things.

I never stated that the atmosphere was large, as large as I see the volume of water compared to the volume of land on the planet or the volume of water in comparison to the troposphere, which I'm sure the water basins wordwide per volume far exceed the volume of the troposphere. But that's only a suppostion and I don't know the facts. One could view the atmosphere as a piece of plastic wrap on a basketball. Since CO2, sulfur, and soot, NOx, and other byproducts of airline emissions are being measured and compared to other sources of greenhouse gasses, we do know at this time that the contribution of aviation emissions is far less than that of the land based coal burning and other related CO2 emitting industries, including land transportation. So far from IPCC and NOAA as well as the tropospheric projects, the aviation emissions are indeed part of the overall composition, but not a determining factor or primary factor at this point. Sorry, the research, graphs and charts do not bear witness to your concern over aviation emissions at this point, but nonetheless, they do contribute and they should be curtailed.

The truth is that the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere is also a very sensitive layer - and that what goes on there has a major, cumulative impact on the regions above and below it. The health of boundary layers (for example marine/atmosphere and upper troposphere/lower stratosphere) is very important relative to the health of The Whole.

Indeed.

from the pdf
for individual ocean basins and Figures A9–A12 shows the
percent variance accounted for by the linear trend for each
basin. The linear trend of the world ocean (Figure 2) is
positive at most latitudes with the largest increase in the
upper layer of the world ocean with one notable exception.
There is a large negative trend centered at about 150 m
depth in the equatorial region and southern hemispheric
tropics. Examination of Figures A6–A8 shows that much of
this cooling occurs in the Pacific Ocean. This may be
associated with the reversal of polarity of the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation [Stephens et al., 2001] during the
late-1970s. The Indian Ocean exhibits subsurface cooling
along 10S. Two other regions of cooling include the North
Pacific around 40N and the North Atlantic centered at
60N. It is well known that the subarctic gyre of the North
Atlantic has been cooling during recent decades. Levitus et
Earth’s Heat Balance[quote]

[quote][9] To understand the variability of the Earth’s climate
system it is important to estimate the contributions of
different terms in Earth’s heat balance. In Figure 3 we update
earlier estimates [Levitus et al., 2001] of the different
components of Earth’s heat balance. In addition to our new
ocean heat content estimate, an additional term in the Earth’s
heat balance now available is the variability of the heat
content of Earth’s lithosphere. Beltrami et al. [2002] used
temperature profile data from boreholes to make this estimate.
They estimate that Earth’s continents warmed by 0.9 1022 J during the past 50 years. This value is of the same
order as the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere during this
period and the heat of fusion associated with possible melting
of the Antarctic continental glacier assuming an estimated
maximum melting rate [Houghton et al., 2001]. Inspection of
Figure 3 indicates that the world ocean is responsible for
approximately 84% of the estimated possible total increase of
heat content of the Earth system for 1955–1998.
estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the year; each pentadal
estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the 5-year period.

So the earth's continents warmed as well? What does he mean by "heat of fusion?" Is he referring to the earth's inner core? He mentions "melting" of glaciers but not the reason why!!! Then he makes a brash assumption that the ocean was responsible for 84% of the total increase of the heat content of theEarth system from 1955-1998. He fails to explain how that occured. Do you see any proof of that in his paper? His paper only charts the increase in ocean temperature as well as the decreases through a particular timeframe.
First he says the earth warmed equally to the atmosphere then threw in the ocean warming as the primary cause of the atmospheric and continental warming. According to greenhouse gas theory, the atmosphere heated the ocean FIRST,notsaying I agree with that totally, for I reserve the UV and sun factor in the temperature fluctuations especially at the poles, not to disregard the earth's rotational and angular movements relative to the sun. We must also consider paleoclimatology references regarding past timescale heatings and coolings of both the atmospheric and oceanic realms as well as rising CO2 in the past. I will throw in the possible theory that the inner core of the earth may go through increases in thermic activity related to the sun and cosmic forces.

Boomer Chick

08-03-2005, 05:13 PM

A very interesting paleo study regarding tree rings. Again, haven't read it yet, but will give my opinion related to past heating and cooling trends. Actually this looks like a stalagmite study. Well let's see.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/europe/austria/spannagel2005.txt

;)

Boomer Chick

08-03-2005, 05:16 PM

Here's the abstract from the above link:

ABSTRACT:
The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave
in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature
at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the
Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7°C higher
than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values.
The high correlation of this record to d14C suggests that solar variability
was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.

GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Austria, Central Europe
PERIOD OF RECORD: 90 BC to 1935 AD

Boomer Chick

08-03-2005, 06:22 PM

Other comments regarding Levitus:

If you notice in part 5., the discussion, he quotes himself and his study as the proof of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as primary to the heating of the oceans. I didn't think scientists were allowed to use their own studies as evidence of a so-called fact. Wouldn't he be required to cite other sources as well?

He states "internal variability" on "decadal time systems" as enfluential regarding heat balance as well.

OK he answers my question [11] regarding the variations in oceanic heat (Pacific verses Atlantic and also variances regarding the North and South P and A regions as well as the Indian Ocean). His reasons:

1. natural and anthropogenic gasses are not well mixed

geographic variability of ozone, and other gases and soot (Houghton et al)

2. Changes in radiative balance affects the circulation systems both regional and globally

DUH!

[12] I was right, the volume of the ocean is greater than the atmosphere (ocean = 10 to the 21st power kilograms & atmosphere = 10 to the 18th power kilograms) . Of course it's conditional in the sense that the surface layers more directly interact than the lower levels. We can't forget the molten core, Mid-Atlantic ridge and other volcanic heating influences, though, even at deep levels. And of course mixing and currents come into play.

Regarding the comparative heat retention or heating exchange differential of the oceans vs the atmosphere:
Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1C of the
world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean
temperature change of 100C of the global atmosphere if
all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was
instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere.
This of course will not happen but this computation
illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus
the atmosphere.

Electronic versions of the yearly and pentadal heat
content fields used here and data distribution maps by
yearly and pentadal compositing periods are available at
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/indprod.html

Just thinking outloud here, please add your own thoughts on Levitus.