Headline: Earth™:
Katie Fehlinger hosts Headline: Earth, which takes an unbiased look at all sides of the global warming debate. The weekly show features the latest headlines related to global warming, along with interviews of prominent and newsworthy guests, including global warming legislation advocate and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), Senator (D) Barbara Boxer of California and global warming skeptic and former EPW chairman, Senator (R) James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Visit Headline: Earth's video page to see any or all of Katie's videos.
The total number of climate change lobbyists has more than tripled in the past 5 years, reaching a total of 2,340 in 2008, according to the San Francisco Chronicle article.
--Climate change lobbyists now outnumber members of congress by a margin of 4 to 1.
--Compare this number to the total number of Washington lobbyists, which has decreased from 15,397 to 15,139 over the past year.
--Environmental groups have stepped up their lobbying efforts and have about 180 lobbyists on Capitol Hill, as opposed to less than 50 five years ago.
--Still, business and energy lobbyists still outnumber environmental and alternative energy lobbyists by a margin of 8 to 1.
The boom in climate change lobbying, some experts say, can be traced to the passage of an energy bill in late 2007 when members of Congress wrangled over whether to require utilities to use renewable energy sources. The provision was eventually dropped from the bill, but it pointed the way the green debate was going, according to the Chronicle.
"There are more people saying 'Yes, we've got to do something' than there are saying 'no,' says Tony Kriendler of the Environmental Defense Fund, in regards to energy companies, which certainly have a stake in the game.
The annual maximum Arctic sea ice extent was confirmed a few days ago by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The official date of the maximum was February 28th.
This season's maximum extent was 720,000 km below the 1979-2000 average, making it the 5th lowest maximum extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979.
Here is the updated sea ice extent chart for the Arctic, which is compared to the record low extent season of 2006-2007 and the 1979-2000 average.
A note from the NSIDC: Near-real-time sea ice data updates are again available from Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis. We have switched to the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F13 satellite following the sensor drift problem described in our February 18 post.
The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data.
-------------
Here are some false color images from the University of Bremen in Germany, showing the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice concentration as of April 2nd. I also show a comparison to April 2nd, 2008.
Arctic April 2, 2008
Arctic April 2, 2009
Antarctic April 2, 2008
Antarctic April 2, 2009
--------------------
By the way, down in the Antarctic, the annual sea ice freeze up is well underway. Here is a chart from the Polar Research Group within the University of Illinois at Champaign, showing the latest southern hemispheric sea ice area and the anomaly. Looks like it is running slightly above -normal at this time.
As you have probably figured out from previous blogs, I love animals. My favorite species are snakes, but all animals are A OK in my book, well, maybe not ticks or mosquitoes....
Well, speaking about animals, I ran across this article about the American Pika, a mountain rodent found in the Rockies. This petite mammal may become the 1st species in the continental United States to get federal endangered species protections because of the effects of climate change.
Is this just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended)? Will there be more species that will be offered protection because of the changing climate? Will some species actually fare better? Will some animals expand the range northward (ie. alligators)? Will an expanding frost-free period allow for more mosquitoes and ticks (gross)!!
Well, sorry about the briefness of the article (is briefness a word?), and I also apologize for all of the parenthesis. Have a good week and thanks for reading!
Accuweather.com's Headline Earth has had some interesting one-on-one interviews over the past couple of years in regards to climate change. We have seen many new readers to this site since I started doing this blog back in 2007 and I know many of you have never seen some of these interviews from the past. Enjoy!
I was sent this article about the thinning Arctic ice from the Jet Propulsion Lab. The press release states that in addition to the continuing decade-long trend of diminishing sea-ice cover, new satellite data shows that the Arctic Ice Cap is thinning as well.
Thin seasonal ice, which is ice that melts and re-freezes every year, makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent, according to researchers from the University of Colorado.
Seasonal sea ice averages about 6 feet in thickness, while ice that has lasted through more than one summer averages 9 feet in thickness.
"Ice extent is an important measure of the health of the Arctic, but it only gives us a two-dimensional view of the ice cover," said Walter Meier, research scientist at the center and the University of Colorado, Boulder. "Thickness is important, especially in the winter, because it is the best overall indicator of the health of the ice cover. As the ice cover in the Arctic grows thinner, it grows more vulnerable to melting in the summer." (from the press release)
-----------------------------
Debating global warming fears
Roll Call TV held a mini-debate on the politics and fears of global warming last week.
On one side we had Joe Romm of Climateprogress.org. Romm is also the former acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under the Clinton Administration. Romm holds a Ph. D in Physics from MIT.
On the other side we have Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent of Climatedepot.com. Marc is also the communications director for the republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Marc is well known on this blog and has posted comments here from time to time.
There are two parts to this video debate. The debate begins at about the 4 minute mark on part 1 and continues through part 2. The debate gets quite interesting!
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) has released their global temperature anomaly data for the month of March. The temperature data is measured using microwave sounding units on board satellites. The data set goes back to 1979, which is obviously not a very long period of time when you are looking at climate, but the technology was not available before that.
According to RSS, globally, the month of March was slightly warmer in the lower troposphere (earth's surface to 6 to 10 miles above ground) compared to the 30-year measured mean. Here is a breakdown of the temperature anomalies in degrees kelvin.
Globally (-70S to 82.5N): +.172 K
Continental U.S.: +.619 K
Northern Hemisphere: +.227 K
Southern Hemisphere: +.115 K
-----------------------------
Here is the global temperature anomaly map for March
Note: The unusual warming over the southern U.S. and from southeastern Russia through the Middle East.
Note: The unusual cold over western Canada and parts of northern Russia.
The cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) clearly shows up with the significant warming over the northwestern Pacific and the cool band extending northeast from Hawaii.
-----------------
The latest RSS measured lower troposhere decadal trend
You can clearly see that a majority of the decadal warming since since 1979 has been in the northern hemisphere, especially in the Arctic regions.
-----------------
As the lower troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools
The image shows the decadal temperature trend of the stratosphere, and as you can see much of stratosphere (varies from 6 to 31 miles above the earth's surface) has been cooling.
What causes the stratosphere to cool?
1. Depletion of stratospheric ozone.
2. Increase in atmospheric CO2.
There is a good explanation of why the stratosphere cools due to the greenhouse effect in the middle of this page from espere.
------------
Acknowledgement
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.
The Wilkins Ice shelf during March of 2008. Image courtesy BAS.
The Wilkins Ice bridge breaks up. Image taken April 4th, 2009. Image courtesy BAS.
Most of you by now have heard about the very recent collapse of the Antarctic ice bridge (25 miles long) connecting the Wilkins Ice Shelf to Charcot Island. I read up on the details of this collapse from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). Here are some of the important points that were brought up about this situation...........
1. The scientists see climate change as the main culprit. The Antarctic Peninsula is the fastest warming region on earth in the past 50 years. The region has warmed 2.5 degrees celsius or 4 degrees F. during that period.
2. The Wilkins Ice shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice that covers over 5,000 square miles.
3. This particular breakup of the ice bridge happened between March 31st and April 6th.
4. The Wilkins Ice shelf, which has supposedly been in place for a few hundred years, first began breaking up in the mid 1990's.
5. Scientists are still trying to figure out whether this particular event will allow to the ice shelf to collapse further in the near future, perhaps as early as the next melt season.
A view from space of the ice shelf on March 31st, 2009. Image courtesy of NASA.
The same view showing the break up of the ice bridge on April 6th, 2009.
What are the consequences of this ice bridge collapse?
1. The ice bridge, which was bracing the remaining portions of the Wilkins Ice shelf, will now allow a mass of broken ice and icebergs to drift into the southern ocean. This could eventually be an concern for some ships that travel that far south.
2. The further collapse of the shelf in itself will not directly raise sea levels, since it already floats on the water.
3. But, the collapse could allow land based glaciers and ice sheets that normally feed into the ice shelf to start flowing ice into the open ocean at an accelerated rate, which would contribute to a rise in sea levels.
Some research suggests that there would be a 20-foot rise in sea level if the entire Greenland Ice sheet melted away, while a 200-foot rise would occur if the entire Antarctic Ice sheet were to melt.
Administration getting Serious about Geoengineering
The Obama administration is now seriously looking at radical technologies to combat global warming, according to the Associated Press.
Various forms of climate geoengineering.
Climate geoengineering involves the large-scale, deliberate modification of the Earth's environment to suit human needs and habitability. In this case, it is the act of deliberately manipulating the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.
One particular option that was mentioned in the AP interview with John Holdren, who is the president's new science adviser, is shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren cautioned that such a measure would only be used as a last resort.
A second option that he mentioned was the use of artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and put it in storage.
----------- In his Tuesday blog on Accuweather Professional, expert senior meteorologist and long-range specialist Joe Bastardi voices his opinion about this particular idea of geoengineering...............
Madness Takes Control
This is lunacy: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97ECHLG1&show_article=1
The idea that you will shoot pollutants in the air to cool the atmosphere shows the lunacy of the people advising President Obama. If you are an environmentalist that supports the AGW ideas, this should really have you question the motives of these people. Why? WE SPENT DECADES AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS CLEANING UP THE AIR, NOW WE WANT TO TRASH THE AIR AGAIN. BY THE WAY, VOLCANOES WILL DO THE JOB FOR YOU. But aside from that, this is yet another scare tactic, to force people NOT TO LOOK AT DATA TO THE CONTRARY.
I cannot believe the extent of the irrationality I am seeing with idea like this. I don't care how many PHDs you have, you are basically saying that what we did to clean the air caused warming, since you are saying we have to dirty it back up again to stop it. What other conclusions can you draw? That you do not even think of this, the implications of what is says, shows the argument is meant for those who will not think for themselves.
Here is the global temp with the IPCC forecast on it: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/7YRCOOLINGSPPI.JPG
I can't believe I am reading this. It is arrogance pure and simple, believing you will control what you did not create. In addition, just what do you think will happen to all that garbage you shoot into the air?
I am telling you right now, this can't be anything but a ruse to scare people into thinking we are boiling up, to try to get cap and trade, which is dead in the senate, back on track again. It's as if the colder it gets the more they ratchet it up.
You give me my 10-20 years; no one is going to burn up and we will have the answer. And if I am wrong, then you will have a forceful advocate on your side. But everything I see coming out of people advising the president looks to be crafted as sound bites to get the public's attention. It's almost as if they have taken a page out of Woodrow Wilson's history, who wished for something less than a war, an environmental catastrophe, to unite the world around.
The real shame is that it's hard to concentrate on the wildness of the pattern, the links back to 1951 and 1975, for instance, in trying to teach that aspect, with rantings from what is clearly becoming an extremist mantra, making headlines and being used as if it's accepted truth.
I want you to think exactly about what President Obama's advisor is advocating here... shooting back into the air the very items we worked so hard to clean out. Why the heck did we clean it up in the first place if it would mean we are so warm? And see, this is WHY THESE GUYS ARE NOT THINKING ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, OR ARE IRRATIONAL. Because what this actually says is that DIRTYING THE AIR, IF IT'S A PREVENTIVE MEASURE, MEANS IT COULD BE THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM SINCE IF WE HAD LEFT THE POLLUTION, THEN IT WOULD BE COOLER! They shoot down their own CO2 argument as one can argue easily that if dirty air makes it cooler, then cleaning it caused the warming, AND CO2 IS A SIDESHOW.
As I said, madness takes control.
Joe Bastardi.
Note: The opinions of Joe Bastardi do not necessarily reflect those of AccuWeather.com
--------------
Keep in mind, Holdren did say that shooting particles into the air would be a last resort, and that it could have grave side effects and not totally solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse emissions. Brett.
Aerosols Playing Big Role in Arctic Climate Change
New NASA research suggests that aerosols likely account for 45% or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.
Aerosols are tiny, airborne particles that can be emitted by natural or human sources.
Sources of aerosols on earth.
Two specific types of aerosols play a critical role in regulating climate change. They are sulfates and black carbon, which are products of human activity, according to the NASA article.
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Reductions by 50% from major source countries has improved air quality, but has also resulted in less atmospheric cooling.
Black carbon absorbs incoming solar radiation and has a strong warming influence on the atmosphere. Compared to sulfates, black carbon emissions continue to steadily rise, mainly due to growth over in Asia.
The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s.
Below are direct excerpts from the NASA article that are important to state.......
That makes sense, Drew Shindell of NASA's GISS explained, because of the Arctic's proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world's aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.
Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.
In the Antarctic, in contrast, the impact of sulfates and black carbon is minimized because of the continent's isolation from major population centers and the emissions they produce.
"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."
Can this be fixed?
Aerosols tend to be quite-short lived, residing in the atmosphere for just a few days or weeks. Greenhouses gases, by contrast, can persist for hundreds of years. Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries.
Before becoming a meteorologist here at AccuWeather, I went through several different jobs. One of them was a high school math/science teacher in Massachusetts. Everyone always knew I was a certified weather nut, and would always bring the weather into my lessons, whether it was in a math class with probabilities or in a science lesson (much easier to do since I taught earth science). Other jobs I had were, in no particular order, a house painter, pizza deliverer, pharmacist technician, construction and a clerk at a video store. Not sure why I'm telling you this.... well, besides the fact that I feel very lucky to finally work (and get paid!!) to do something I love...
Well, one of the things I did teach was climate change and both man's and natural force's roles in the atmosphere. One question I heard from numerous students is how climate change and the depletion of the ozone layer were one and the same. I would always tell them that they were completely unrelated and had nothing to do with one another (I know that CFC's are a strong greenhouse gas, but I kept it is simple as possible for them and I didn't really get into that). Well, it turns out, according to this article at least, that I was wrong! What a shock....
By reading this article, if I am understanding it correctly, climate change could be setting up circulation patterns that are thinning the ozone layer where is thickest (the tropics) and thickening the ozone layer where it is the thinnest (the poles). This would lead to more harmful UV rays reaching the earth's surface in the tropics where a) the rays are the strongest and b) where more people than as compared to the poles and c) where people wear less clothes. These factors could combine to cause problems in the tropics and subtropics.
Some of the possible scenarios that Soon discussed.........
1. A reduced energy input from a dimmer sun will result in less heating of the oceans' surface, which would lead to less evaporation from the ocean surface. The result of this would be a decrease in water vapor, which is by far the earth's major greenhouse gas.
2. Less water vapor would result in a decrease in high cirrus clouds, which trap more heat than they reflect.
3. A reduced energy input from the sun would equal less energy to bring water vapor high into the atmosphere, so more would end up collecting a few kilometers from the surface, resulting in more low clouds. Low clouds are much more effective at reflecting sunlight, which would produce a net cooling effect.
-----------
Dr. Soon is also associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, and also spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change, which was held in New York City back in early March.
The conversion of forest to oil palm (which is increasingly used as a source of biofuel) could actually hasten climate change by removing one of the world's most efficient carbon storage tools, intact tropical rain forests, according to Finn Danielson, the lead scientist in the study.
Oil Palm Plantation
Other tropical crops that are used for the production of biofuels such as soybean, sugar cane and jatropha are likely to have similar impacts, according to the Physorg.com article.
The study, which is posted in the Conservation Biology Journal, states that reducing deforestation is likely to represent a more effective climate-change mitigation strategy than converting tropical forest for biofuel production.
Planting biofuels on degraded grasslands, instead of tropical rain forest would produce a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere in 10 years, but it would take more than 75 years when biofuel plantations are established on forest lands.
--------------
For our U.S. readers........it's April 15th, did you remember to file your taxes?
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has released their official global temperature data for March of 2009.
According to the NCDC, March 2009 was the 10th warmest March (land and ocean combined) since records began in 1880.
Yes, it's the dot map again!
Here are the official March 2009 temperature anomalies, which are based on the Smith and Reynolds method .......
Global land and sea combined: +0.54 C or +0.97 F
Northern Hemisphere: +0.57 C or +1.03 F
Southern Hemisphere: +0.50 C or +0.90 F
-----------------------------------
March 2009 snow cover extent
Northern hemispheric snow cover extent during the month of March was below normal and the 12th lowest on record. In North America alone, snow cover extent during March was almost right at normal.
------------------
March sea ice extent
Northern Hemispheric sea ice extent for March 2009 was the 6th lowest (March only) on record and averaged 3.7% below the 1979-2000 average. Records have been kept since 1979.
It was the opposite in the S. Hemisphere. Sea ice extent was 15.8% above the 1979-2000 average, making it the 4th largest March sea ice extent on record.
New research from NASA suggests that the greenhouse gases are changing the dynamics of the atmosphere and will continue to alter the earth's ozone layer well into the future.
Increasing greenhouse gases actually cool the upper stratosphere, which is about 18-31 miles above the earth's surface. This cooling slows the chemical reactions that deplete ozone in the upper stratosphere and allows natural ozone production in that region to outpace destruction by CFCs, according to the ScienceDaily article.
This accumulation of greenhouse gases also changes the circulation of stratospheric air masses from the tropics to the poles.
In the mid-latitudes, ozone will most likely "over-recover" through the end of the century (bad news for the sun block lotion business), while in the tropics, ozone may not fully recover or see no recovery.
The findings are based on a detailed computer model that includes atmospheric chemical effects, wind changes, and solar radiation changes.
Based on the model, recovery in the Arctic is expected by 2025, while globally averaged and Antarctic concentrations of ozone are expected to recover by 2040.
The recovery in the middle and polar latitudes might have some benefits such as lower levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface and correspondingly lower rates of skin cancer. On the other hand, it could have unintended effects, such as increasing ozone levels in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere at Earth's surface.
------------- Latest update on the ozone hole
The ozone hole over the Antarctic peaks during the month of September. As of September 2008, the size of the hole was 8.5 million sq/m. The record size was 10.03 million sq/m. For more detailed information on the ozone hole, click here.
NASA also has a nice forecast animation of the Antarctic ozone hole through 2065 right here.
As Brett had mentioned in a recent article, sunspot activity continues to be nearly non-existent, actually, it is non-existent as can be seen from the picture below. That got me wondering... Is this completely unusual? Is something strange going on here?
According to this article, what is occurring is completely natural, as Dr. Sean Oughton, an associate professor of Mathematics at New Zealand's Waikato University (what is he doing commenting on sunspots?) says ""What we are experiencing is a very deep solar minimum, but it is still completely within the bounds of what is normal."
I, a novice about the subject of sunspots and how its affects our climate, am intrigued by how "quiet" the sun has been. How much longer does the sun need to be "quiet" before we start to wonder if something is going on here that is not "normal?" I am just beginning to understand how the lack of solar activity affects our climate, and I wonder if and when will see any climate changes due to how the lack of sunspots and solar activity?
Note: I meant to get this up a couple days ago, but I had to make a long distance trip to attend a funeral over the weekend. Brett
--------
Several days ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA to you and me) announced that through a thorough scientific review, greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The review was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2007.
A total of six, specific gases were mentioned in the report.....
The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate, according to the report.
Their analysis also states that climate change has serious national security implications. According to the EPA, escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources - including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.
Friday's finding does not include any proposed regulations and is just one of many steps in the process to create the framework for a clean energy economy.
We would love to hear your opinion about this announcement.
-----------
Happy 16th Birthday Scott! Time to head to the DMV. Ugh!
Ancient stalagmites Reveal 200,000 Year Old Answer
Today is Earth Day!
The first Earth Day was held back in 1970 when 20 million Americans demonstrated for a healthy, sustainable earth environment. The Earth Day Network is a great site to check out what events are scheduled for today across the globe and what actions you can take to help make a greener planet.
Now to the stalagmite story
Researchers from the Australia National University have determined that ancient stalagmites in a submerged Italian cave indicate that there were sea level rises caused by global warming more than 200,000 years ago.
Uranium isotope dating techniques showed the stalagmites recorded water levels in the cave as far back as between 190,000 and 245,000 years ago, according to the ABC Science (Australia) article.
Lead author Dr. Andrea Dutton says the strength of the stalagmite archive is that it is not as susceptible to alteration by the environment when compared with coral reef clusters that are also commonly used to date sea water rises.
Dutton says their study shows that "the lag time between temperature change and the sea level rise may not be as long as expected".
It was previously believed that temperature rise preceded ice sheet melting by more than 3000 years.
This suggests ice sheets are capable of responding quickly to increasing temperature and CO2, and that the current melting of ice sheets may happen faster than expected, according to the report.
CO2 Absorbed more Efficiently under Polluted Skies
Plants have taken in carbon dioxide (CO2) more efficiently under polluted (hazy) skies in recent decades compared to a cleaner atmosphere, according to a new study from the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH).
Haze over India and the Bay of Bengal, courtesy of NASA.
"Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity from 1960 to 1999. This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account," said Dr. Lina Mercado, from the CEH and lead author of the study.
The atmospheric particles (aerosols), which can create these hazy days, scatter light so that the surface receives light from multiple directions (diffuse radiation) rather than coming straight from the sun. Plants are then able to convert more of the available sunlight into growth because fewer leaves are in the shade.
"Although many people believe that well-watered plants grow best on a bright sunny day, the reverse is true. Plants often thrive in hazy conditions such as those that exist during periods of increased atmospheric pollution," said co-author Dr. Stephen Sitch from the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The research team found that by cleaning up the atmosphere (reduction in sulphate aerosols through this century) even steeper cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions would be required to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million by volume.
This study was published in the journal Nature just today.
----------
Note: Some of the paragraphs from above were taken directly from the CEH press release.
In her most recent Headline Earth episode, host Katie Fehlinger discusses the "disappearing" glaciers of Kashmir.
Kashmir is a disputed (territorial) mountainous region, which includes India, Pakistan and China.
According to Fehlinger, small glaciers across that region have been shrinking or have completely disappeared, and this is having an impact on the people who live in the region.
Blog posted by AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Mark Paquette
Looking at global warming articles online, I came across this article that I thought was interesting.
What I thought was interesting was the lengths that people go to get their idea out about their beliefs about global warming. Whether you believe in global warming, or if you think is alot of bull, people are very passionate about it. This reminds me of how people feel about politics and religion, whatever side you are on, you generally tend to be very passionate and stubborn in your beliefs about it.
I think this article brings up some good points, ie. it shows how hard it is to cut your "carbon footprint" down and how if people need to join together to really make an impact. Also shown is how modern day conveniences are very hard to give up and are such an assumption and ingrained into our lives, basically since we are born. Examples of this are washing machines, hair dryers, ovens, basically any appliances. Can we imagine living without these inventions of the last 100 years or so?
I wrote in an earlier blog about how people who feel very strongly about their belief that global warming is occurring sometimes go overboard and look "silly" to the everyday person (see Gore, Al). Does "Ethical Man" go to far and do more harm for his side of the story than good?
A massive release of underwater and underground stores of methane is less likely to trigger catastrophic climate change than earlier research has suggested, according to a study by researchers from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia (CSIRO).
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with current atmospheric levels close to 1800 parts per billion and increasing, says Dr. David Etheridge from CSIRO.
The most common natural source of atmospheric methane is through decomposition of organic material in wetlands, but the greatest potential source of atmospheric methane is trapped in methane hydrates, or clathrates, which are located deep on the ocean floor or under permafrost, according to the ABC Science article.
What they found......
The research team checked the levels of naturally occurring carbon-14 isotopes in methane over a period of 300 years at the start of the warming, which was about 12,000 years ago.
Methane from clathrates is millions of years old and contains no C14, whereas methane from wetlands is more recent and has a higher level of C14.
"The increase in the methane was not accompanied by a decrease in the C14, which tells us the origin was the wetlands not the clathrates," said Dr. Etheridge.
These findings should reduce concern about the massive release of methane from clathrates in the near future, according to Etheridge.
----------
Here is a more detailed look at methane clathrates, along with an audio presentation.
Very recent satellite data from the European Space Agency (ESA) confirms that icebergs are now starting to break away from the northern front of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
If you remember, a large ice bridge that had previously linked the Antarctic mainland (Wilkins Ice Shelf) to Charcot Island had collapsed over three weeks ago. Here is a the link to that story.
The icebergs are calving as a result of fracture zones that have formed over the last 15 years and which turned Wilkins into a fragile and vulnerable ice shelf, according to the ESA News article.
The ESA has a nice satellite animation going back to mid-April, which shows the progression of the iceberg calving process. The loop is on the middle of this page.
There is also a detailed full screen version, but it will take a few minutes to load.
