An image from MODIS was taken back in 2002 and shows the Amazon rainforest region (dark green). You can see the results of clear cutting down in the bottom right and center. Also, the smoke from the numerous fires (red dots) that are set to clear the the land.

The loss of forest land across parts of the globe, but specifically the Amazon region of Brazil is one of the keys to the steady increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide as stored carbon from these old jungles is released into the atmoshere as it is destroyed. Around 20% of global CO2 emissions due to human activities are from tropical deforestation and land use change. According to the Physorg.com article, Brazil's Amazon jungles have lost 4,800 sq. miles during a 12-month period from 2007 to 2008, which is about the size of Connecticut. This loss is about a 4% increase over the previous 12-month period.

The primary reason for this loss is the continuous encroachment of farms which tend to produce soya beans.

Amazon forest burning.

There is some good news, Brazil has been able to sharply reduce the loss of Amazon rainforests over the past 3 years, according to the article, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done to prevent loss.

Here is a link to an article from CSIRO last year which explains how deforestation plays a critical climate change role.

The differences that we see in the characteristics of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is mostly due to geography. The Arctic is mostly a semi-enclosed ocean that is surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is a large land mass that is surrounded by large oceans. The sea ice in the Arctic is not as mobile and a lot of it remains in the colder waters of the Arctic into the summer, while in the Antarctic, the sea ice can move around much more freely and much more of it can melt compared to the Arctic since it is free to float into the warmer waters farther to the north since there are no land barriers in the way.

The Arctic Ocean is mostly covered by ice and surrounded by land, precipitation is relatively rare. Snowfall tends to be low, except near the ice edge. Antarctica, however, is entirely surrounded by ocean, so moisture is more readily available. Antarctic sea ice tends to be covered by thicker snow compared to the Arctic.

The NSIDC has a detailed page comparing the additional differences in sea ice. You can read it here.

----------------------------

Here a simplified summary of differences between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice characteristics. Information courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Arctic

Maximum Areal Extent
15,000,000 km2 (9,320,568 mi2)

Minimum Areal Extent
7,000,000 km2 (4,349,598 mi2)

Typical Thickness
~ 2 m (6 ft)

Geographic Distribution
Asymmetric

Snow Thickness
Thinner

Trend
Significant. decrease of 3% per decade (200,000 km2, 77,220 mi2)

Antarctic

Maximum Areal Extent
18,000,000 km2 (11,184,681 mi2)

Minimum Areal Extent
3,000,000 km2 (1,864,114 mi2)

Typical Thickness
~ 1 m (3 ft)

Geographic Distribution
Symmetric

Snow Thickness
Thicker

Trend
Not significant. Increase of 0.8% per decade (about 100,000 km2, 38,610 mi2)

----------------------------------

Here are the latest sea ice anomaly charts

Arctic ice extent with anomaly. Image courtesy of the NSIDC.

Antarctic sea ice area with anomaly. Image courtesy of the University of Illinois at Champaign Polar Research Group.

Longer term mean Arctic sea ice anomaly going back to 1953. Image NSIDC.

A comparison of Arctic and Antarctic anomalies going back to 1979 with trend line.

As you can see, since 1979 the overall trend in the Antarctic has been a slight increase, while the Arctic basin has see a much more pronounced decrease in sea ice.

Headline Earth's Katie Fehlinger continues her interview with NOAA's Michael McPhaden. In this video segment, McPhaden explains that El Nino has been around for at least 120,000 years and does not cause global warming. Watch the short video and he will explain.

Speaking of El Nino and La Nina, here is the latest sea surface temperature anomaly for the globe as of December 2nd. Image courtesy of the NCDC.

After looking at the image a couple things stand out.....

1. Temperature anomalies in the equatorial Pacific which is the key area for El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling), we can see that much of that area is either at or very slightly below-normal, which supports the current neutral phase.

2. Much of the oceans in the southern hemisphere over the past few years have been cooler than normal, but now we are seeing larger areas of above-normal anomalies showing up. Will that continue? Tough to say at this point.

3. Note the significant cold anomaly just south of Alaska and the warm one east of Newfoundland.

According to the latest ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) update from NOAA, the current phase is neutral, but atmospheric and oceanic features mildly reflect the colder phase of ENSO (La Nina), but the official indicator still falls short of the La Nina threshold. The latest Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) was right on 0.0 during the latest three month period from August to October.

To be classified an El Nino (positive ONI greater than or equal to +0.5) or La Nina (negative ONI less than or equal to -0.5) thes thresholds must be exceeded for a period of at least 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons.

Here is a plot of the latest ENSO forecasts from November, courtesy of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society.

A majority of the models are clustered just short of La Nina classification through the winter then trend slightly upward after that.

Crabgrass. A familar sight for homeowners like me who do not use herbicides on their lawn.

Scientists from the University of California at Irvine conducted an experiment that tried to determine how global warming affects lawns' emission of nitrous oxide (N2O), which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

In the experiment there were two plots of grass. Half of each plot was heavily fertilized, while the other halves received low doses of fertilizer. At the same time, one of the plots was heated up by an additional 6 degrees F.

To the researchers' surprise, crabgrass sprouted in the plots after only one year, and it was 30 percent more prevalent in the heated plots than in the unheated ones. (Fertilizer had no effect on it.) In contrast to fescue and most other crop plants, crabgrass and many other weeds photosynthesize with greater efficiency the warmer it gets, so they have been predicted to proliferate as temperatures rise, according to the LiveScience article.

Oh, by the way the experiment also showed that the combination of warming, fertilizer and irrigation caused increased N2O emissions, which could lead to more warming (positive feedback) and more of the dreaded CRABGRASS!

Thanks to Jim Arndt for finding this interesting piece from Roger Pielke Sr's blog.

In Roger's Climate Science blog, Roger wanted to see if the length of the summer melt season in the Arctic Basin has actually been lengthening since 1979.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) Mark Serreze in a recent abstract noted that model-projected Arctic Amplification is focused over the Arctic Ocean and as the climate warms the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies.

William Chapman, the author of the Cryosphere Today, prepared an analysis for Roger showing the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage going back to 1979.

Here is a link to that graph.

The graph shows that the minimum date has actually changed very little during the period, if anything it has trended ever so slightly earlier, while the maximum date has trended slightly earlier as well, but the end result is very little change in the length of the summer melt season in the Arctic since 1979.

One question.... Is 30 years a long enough time interval to see a noticeable increase in the summer melt season in the Arctic, or is this something that might take 50 or 100 years to become more noticeable?

Blog posted by Mark Paquette:

If I wasn't a meteorologist, I think I would of studied something to do with animals. I have always loved them since childhood. Two of my favorite animals are rattlesnakes (I think I am in awe of the beauty and power) and polar bears (because I love snow and cold). I'll try and combine my budding knowledge in global warming with my interest in polar bears in this post.

I came across article from the National Wildlife Federation which talks about how global warming has and may affect polar bears.

-I know, I know, some readers will say that this is a waste of time... global warming or AGW is not even happening. This is true, that there is alot of debate and lack of agreement on this subject. However, what we can agree on is the the Arctic Ice Self has decreased in size in the past several decades, and this is affecting the polar bears ability to live their lives, since this is where they get the majority of their food from. Whether or not this is due to man-made warming I can't say... but I'm sure some of you have an opinion....

-Obviously, polar bears won't be the only animal or plant affected if AGW or global warming occurs. Will my rattlesnakes be affected? Will your favorite animal or plant be affected by/if global warming occurs? How about your backyard garden? Can citrus crops be able to be grown in more northerly locations soon? Will New England be able to plant tomatoes before Memorial Day (a rule passed on to me from my paternal grandfather)?

-Sorry for the light subject, but any way I can combine two of my favorite subjects, I will. Continue reading and commenting... thank you.

Mark

Engineering Prof. Robert Socolow and ecologist Stephen W. Pacala, codirectors of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton have developed the “stabilization wedge” theory designed to cap carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at current levels.

The two scientists state that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could be fought with a series of individual responses, each designed to remove one “wedge” from the graph showing rising CO2 levels. The wedges include the following, according to the Providence Journal article....

--Improved energy efficiency
--Remove carbon emissions from electric power production
--Reduce methane emissions
--Plant more trees and other vegetation
--Replace gas powered vehicles with electric ones

Dr. Socolow, in response to Dr. James Hansen's global warming claim that the world is fast approaching a point of no return, stated that global warming is a risk management problem, not a threshold problem.

Socolow said he still believes there is some headroom that would allow for more CO2 increases, but the only ethical thing to do would be for developed countries to cap or reduce their emissions, so the poorest countries have some space to grow and create more emissions of their own.

People in developed countries should be limited to 4 or 5 tons of CO2 annually, Socolow said. But it takes very little to reach that level. You could do it by driving an economy car 10,000 miles or flying 10,000 miles a year or heating one house.

------------------------------

That last paragraph is interesting. I calculated my individual carbon footprint at the Nature Conservancy site. I drive a Honda Civic (36 mpg) about 12,000 miles a year, hardly ever fly and heat one house. I also do several things in my household to be energy efficient and my estimated carbon footprint (tons of CO2 released a year) was still 19! This number is still below the U.S. average of 27, but not even close to what Socolow says it would be. I think he needs to take another look at the carbon footprint test. Brett.

-------------------------

Here is a link to Dr. Socolow's slide presentation on the subject. Page 12 shows the "wedge" graph.

Intensifying winds have had little influence on the strength of the Southern Ocean circulation and its ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to new research from a team of Australian and German scientists.

The Southern Ocean

Earlier studies suggested that the Southern Ocean carbon sink was saturated and could no longer keep up with the increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Based on the results of the study, it is determined that Southern Ocean currents, and therefore the Southern Ocean's ability to soak up carbon dioxide, have not changed in recent decades despite the significant increase in wind.

Southern Ocean warming up

Using measurements from a network of ocean robots and comparing that data to historical ship data, the team found that the Southern Ocean was found to be warmer and fresher since the 1960's, and according to CSIRO's Dr. Steve Rintoul, this is a pattern consistent with the 'fingerprint' of climate change from man-made carbon emissions.

Deep water

The team also found no evidence of a change in the amount of deep water rising to the surface near Antarctica.

The fact that the upwelling of deep water has not changed is important. Deep water is very rich in carbon dioxide and so an increase in upwelling tends to transfer carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere. The low-resolution models used for climate forecasts predict stronger winds, which cause stronger upwelling and therefore less carbon dioxide being stored in the ocean, according to the CSIRO media release.

A very active weather pattern is forcing most of my attention away from the global warming blog today, so I figure this is probably a good day for an open forum.

I invite you to post a comment that has at least something to do with climate change. We would love to hear your opinion about the subject. Also, what global warming proposals, if any, would you have for the new administration coming in on January 20th?

Thanks, Brett Anderson (your moderator).

A new technique in determining ancient rainfall appears to support some historians views that the fall of the Roman and Byzantine Empires was partly caused by climate change, and more specifically drought, according to the ABC News article.

John Valley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and collegues studied stalactites from a cave near Jerusalem.

Using a new instrument called an ion microprobe, Valley and his team were able to see much more finer detail within the "rings" of the stalactites, which basically contain a historical record of rainfall climate in the region from 200 B.C to 1100 A.D.

The ion microprobe allows the team to break down the stalactite data by a single year, or even separate seasons, as opposed to centuries.

"The advantage of the ion microprobe is it allows us to analyze samples that are a million to a billion times smaller than we could in the past," said Valley.

The new tool allowed the team to construct the climate record year by year during the time the Roman and Byzantine empires were struggling to survive.

Findings

The team determined that there was a gradual reduction in rainfall during the period all the way back to 200 BC, which supports, but does not yet prove that drought from climate change was partially responsible for the fall of these empires, as some historians have said.

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) recently released their November temperature data for the globe. This temperature data is retrieved by microwave sounding units that are mounted on satellites.The anomalies that I am showing cover the lower troposhere.

Overall, November was a warmer month globally compared to normal.

RSS temperature anomalies for November

RSS global temperature anomaly (70 S to 82.5 N) for November: +0.216 K

RSS Continental U.S. temperature anomaly for November: +0.206 K

RSS Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly for November: +0.231 K

RSS Southern Hemisphere temperature anomaly for November: +0.200 K

There has been a slight upward trend in global anomalies since June of this year on the RSS, and November is the warmest compared to normal since October of 2007. This trend may be partially due to the demise of the La Nina earlier in the year.

University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) preliminary temperature anomaly data for November of 2008.

UAH global temperature anomaly for November 2008: +0.25 C

UAH Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly for November 2008: +0.34 C

UAH Southern Hemisphere temperature anomaly for November 2008: +0.17 C

Acknowledgements...........
MSU/AMSU data are produced by Remote Sensing Systems and sponsored by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program. Data are available at www.remss.com. Link.

Temperature data and graphic courtesy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Link.

Blog by Mark Paquette:

As Brett stated in an earlier blog, this active weather pattern has kept us a little busier than normal, so this post will be a little light on my part....

However, I did find this interesting article from www.dailycamera.com. Knowing our commentors here at AccuWeather, so the first thing I know I'll read from you is "But we do not even know that global warming is occurring" but let's get past this point and just read, enjoy, and then please comment on this article.

-I think a couple of points in this article makes are interesting. First, it mentions that it might be more appropriate to say that the increase in greenhouse gases are warming the oceans, and the oceans are what are causing climate change. I never really thought of it that way. So, the ocean might have more to do with our climate than the atmosphere. Hmmm....

-Also, it mentions that the ocean obviously goes through natural cycles of temperature site on its own (ie. El Nino, La Nina). We can obviously see how these natural cycles affect the earth's climate temporarily, so it makes sense to me to say that the ocean plays a huge role in the earth's climate, and it will affect the climate if ocean temperatures rise.

-Another point the article makes is how scientists are trying to improve the models dealing with ocean temperatures. Good luck with that! From seeing how bad such weather forecasting models such as the NAM,GFS,ECMWF,etc. have done with the east coast storm that just ripped up the coast late last week, I know how much these computer models need to be improved. I'll assume the ocean temperature models need to be improved dramatically as well. I have no idea how to do this, but I wish all the programmers much luck.

Thanks to all that read this blog, and please continue reading and commenting. Also, please enjoy this time of year, no matter what your beliefs are.

Mark

William Brennan of NOAA.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) acting administrator William Brennan said that the North American continent as a whole is warming, mostly as a result of the energy sources we are using. According to the AP article, Brennan made this statement at a briefing on the nation's climate since 1951.

But, according to Martin Hoerling of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, no change in temperature has occurred since 1951 in the center of the U.S., in what Hoerling describes as sort of a "warming hole".

Overall, surface temperatures over the United States have increased 1.6 F since 1951, with most of that warming taking place over the past 30 years.

The NOAA officials also noted that November 2008 was 2.0 degrees above normal for the contiguous U.S. and that this past month was the warmest November on record in the western states. Much of that can be attributed to the large, persistent upper-level ridge of high pressure which covered the region during most of November.

Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the director of the Atmosphere/Energy program at Stanford University recently conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions. Jacobson says that energy from the wind, water and sun are the best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce air pollution deaths, as opposed to biofuels, nuclear and "clean coal".

Wind was the most promising energy source, leading to a better than 99% reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions.

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users, according to the EurekAlert release.

Jacobson said that biofuels are the most damaging choice to move away from fossil fuels. He found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

"Clean coal" is not clean at all, according to Jacobson, and it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

Also, which has been disussed in this blog, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new recommended energy sources The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively "dirty" electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

Electric power sources rated best to worst by Jacobson's evaluation
1. Wind power.
2. Concentrated solar power.
3. Geothermal power.
4. Tidal power.
5. Solar photovoltaics.
6. Wave power.
7. Hydroelectric power.
8. Nuclear power and "clean coal" (tie).

Note: Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.

I decided to have a little fun today with the GISS temperature anomaly and trend temperature plot maps that you can generate on their site. The latest GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU and NCDC global temperature anomalies for November and the annual period from December to November were just released.

All three are pretty consistent in showing that the latest December through November annual period was just over .40 C (.72 F) above normal globally. Here are the specifics for the Dec 2007 to Nov 2008 period.......

GISS +.43 C (+.77 F)
NCDC +.47 C (+.85 F)
HadCRU +.42 C (+.76 F)

Looking specifically at the GISS data, it looks like the Dec 2007 to Nov 2008 annual period was the coolest since the year 2000, but it still ends up making the all-time (going back to 1880) top ten warmest list, coming in at 9th place. By the way, the month of November global land/sea GISS anomaly was +.58 C or (.77 F).

Here are some of the maps I was able to create from the GISS site. The first ones show temperature anomalies against the base period from 1951-1980. The last two show the overall trend in annual temperature. The first one is for this century and the second goes back to 1930.

November 2008 temperature anomalies (GISS)

Dec 2007 to Nov 2008 temperature anomalies (GISS)

Global temperature trends from 2000 through Nov 2008

Global temperature trends from 1930 through Nov 2008

(I put this in since a number of commentators on this blog get angry when they leave out the warmer decade of the 1930s)

I saw this interesting article from Scientific American which shows that some scientists from as far back as the 19th century had concerns about human-induced climate change.

Irish scientist John Tyndall first speculated that man-made global warming might be possible way back in 1861, the year the American Civil War began.

Svante Arrhennius, a nobel prize winning chemist confirmed climate change using pencil and paper calculations by the end of the 19th century, according to the article.

Former President Lyndon Johnson in an address to Congress back in 1965 discussed climate change.

This is pretty cool. Scientific American published an article back in 1959 which was titled 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate'. Here is a photocopy link to that original article.

A rice paddy in India. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, using supercomputers and advanced climate models have hypothesised that human actions started causing global warming between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago.

According to the article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the implementation of agriculture in Asia and widespread deforestation in Europe was the main cause. Specifically, the introduction of rice cultivation and large scale tree removal led to a significant rise in carbon dioxide and methane levels into the atmosphere.

The UW team lead by Steve Vavrus, a climatologist from the University of Wisconsin's Center for Climatic research also think that the build up of greenhouse gases over thousands of years has prevented the start of a new glacial age. I posted a blog last month (November 17th) that talks about this as well.

NASA's Earth Observatory posted an interesting article over a week ago titled 'What's in a Name? Global warming vs. Climate change. We have discussed the use of these two terms in earlier blogs, but this article takes a look back at the history of how these terms originated. The article also mentions other terminology that you may not have heard of before.

The most popular (at least with the media)....Global warming

--First mentioned in a 1975 science article titled ' Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?', by geochemist Wallace Broecker.
--The popular use of this term exploded (especially in the media) starting in 1988 when Dr. James Hansen testified to congress about climate concerns.

Inadvertent Climate Modification

--This term was used during most of the 1970's because scientists did not know if the future direction of climate modificate was up or down, since man-made aerosols might cause cooling.
--This term was basically abandoned in 1979.

Climate Change

--In 1979, the Charney Report, written by Jule Charney of MIT used the global warming term when referring to surface temperature change, but when discussing other changes that were induced by increasing atmospheric CO2 he used the term climate change.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Global Change

--Originated in the late 1980's, but never caught on.

Global Climate Change

--Currently used by NASA and the IPCC.
--A more scientifically accurate term according to NASA and IPCC.

A large portion of the Pacific Ocean has been going through some cooler times recently, and it is not a sign that the earth is headed for another ice age. It's actually the cool phase of the PDO or what scientists call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The cool phase of the PDO, which is a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters recently made its return. Based on the PDO index from the University of Washington, the Pacific has been consistently under the cool phase of the PDO since the end of last year. There was a lot of variability going back to 1999, while much of the 1980's and 1990's saw the warm phase.

The PDO is a long term oscillation which can last anywhere from 5 to 20 years!

Check out the latest sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite below........

In the image, places where the Pacific sea-surface height is higher (warmer) than normal are yellow and red, and places where the sea surface is lower (cooler) than normal are blue and purple. Green shows where conditions are near normal. Sea-surface height is an indicator of the heat content of the upper ocean.

Sea-surface temperature satellite data from NOAA shown below also supports the Jason sea-surface height analysis in showing the classic cool phase of the PDO>

"The present cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will have significant implications for shifts in marine ecosystems, and for land temperature and rainfall patterns around the Pacific basin", said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.

"Even with the strong La Niña event fading in the tropics last spring, the North Pacific's sea surface temperature anomaly pattern has remained strongly negative since last fall. This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond", said Nathan Mantua of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, Seattle.

According to Mantua, the cool phase of the PDO argues against abundant winter/spring precipitation in the southwestern U.S, which includes southern California. The region has been pretty dry recently, but the significant storm this past Wednesday did bring some relief to the region in the form of rain and heavy mountain snow.

The odds of a "white Christmas" in temperate zones have diminished in the last century, according to European climate and meteorology experts and will continue to do so through the century due to climate change, or should we say global warming. Better yet, maybe we should stick to the NASA and IPCC approved global climate change. (see my blog over this past weekend regarding terminology).

According to the Reuters article, the odds of a "white Christmas" are rapidly diminishing in places like Oslo, Norway.

Oddsmakers in Britain even place bets on whether or not there will be a "white Christmas" at a particular location. Hmm....Maybe I should get in on that action. Those odds have got to be awfully long for London.

The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center has satellite data collected since 1978 showing northern hemisphere snow cover for the March-April period has declined by about 2 million square km (772,300 sq mile) to 36 million square km. (From the Reuters article).

Snowlovers should not get too concerned. Gerhard Mueller-Wetermeier, a German climatologist noted that there will be plenty of snow in many temperate zones for decades to come with little noticeable change. Also, keep in mind, warmer air can hold more moisture and in northern temperate zones, including higher elevations this could certainly translate to more snowfall.

Below is our latest U.S. prediction for snow cover on Christmas Day. If this prediction ends up fairly accurate then the areal coverage of snow (trace or more) in the Lower 48 would actually be above the normal. Also, I read that this may end up being the first year since 1971 that all of Canada has a "white Christmas". I personally think it will be about 99.5% of the country, as some of the immediate southern coastal areas of Atlantic Canada and western Vancouver Island may end up green/brown.

I wish everyone a safe and cheerful holiday season!

A new report from the U.S. Geological Survey states that the United States faces the possibility of a much faster climate change by the end of the century than what earlier studies have indicated.

Satellite data over the past two years shows the world's major ice sheets melting much more rapidly than previously thought, and based on this new information the global sea level rise by 2100 could be as much as 4 feet, according to the report. The earlier report from IPCC estimated a 1.5 foot sea level rise by 2100, but that report did not factor in the lubrication under the ice sheet.

The other major point of this new report was that the Southwestern U.S. may have already entered a prolonged drought that could extend all the way to the end of the century. Nearly all of the 24 computer models that were used in this study showed this long term drought.

------------------------------------------------------------

But, the report also indicated that were also some global warming effects that are NOT likely to occur by 2100........

--An abrupt release of methane from the seabed and permafrost.
--A shutdown of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation, which brings warm water north and colder water south.

Thirty-two scientists from federal and non-federal institutions contributed to the report, which took nearly two years to complete. The Climate Change Science Program, which was established in 1990, coordinates the climate research of 13 different federal agencies, according to the Washington Post Article.

Scientific research which claimed that a reduction of cosmic rays (radiation from space) during the last decades contributed to the global temperature rise is being challenged by a new study by a group of scientists from Norway and Iceland.

Cosmic rays. Image courtesy of NASA.

Using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on board satellites, the researchers from Norway and Iceland determined that cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change, since the effect of cosmic rays on clouds is too small to have that much impact. According to the Laser Focus World article, this particular research is supported by some earlier findings.

The team used observations from so-called Forbush decrease events during the study. These events are sudden outbreaks of intense solar activity that lead to a strong reduction of cosmic rays, lasting for a couple of days. The researchers have identified 22 such events between 2000 and 2005.

Previous studies have mainly considered cloud cover, but the high spatial and spectral resolution of the MODIS data also allows for a more in depth study of microphysical parameters such as cloud droplet size, cloud water content and cloud optical depth. No statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and galactic cosmic rays.

Neanderthal man.

Neanderthal extinction was likely caused by competition with humans and not from climate change as some other research has suggested, according to a new study that was funded by the National Science Foundation International Research Fellowship Program and the EuroClimate and OMLL programs of the European Science Foundation.

Using archaeological and chronological data with high resolution paleoclimatic simulations, researchers have determined that neanderthals and anatomically modern humans (AMH) exploited similar niches and continued to do so in the absence of contact.

The research team concluded that the southerly contraction of the neanderthal range in southwestern Europe was not due to climate change or change in adaptation, but rather the competition with the concurrent AMH expansion that led to the eventual extinction of the neanderthals.

You can read the full study with much more detail right here, from PLoS One.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) led a recent scientific assessment which studied the likelihood and extent to which human activity or natural variations have driven surface warming and precipitation in North America over the past 50 years.

Here is what they found, according to the ScienceDaily article............

Changes in sea-surface temperature patterns likely played an important role in determining differences in United States regional temperature trends and large precipitation swings.

These regional differences in sea-surface temperature trends can be either natural or human-caused, but the assessment also found that an increase in greenhouse gases is likely responsible for more than half of the average continental warming of 1.6 F during the past 50 years.

"Using reanalysis and attribution methods we can now say with more confidence what’s driving some of the extreme climate conditions of the past few years: whether it’s global warming, El Nino, La Nina, or some other pattern," said NOAA scientist Martin Hoerling.