The authors of Freakonomics have an interesting take on economics and global warming, explaining how the late 21st century may bring increased agricultural production (at least for some areas) but also the potential for increased mortality.

I found that interesting, but I also link the article because of the examples of the weather's ties to social issues like crime. Who knew nineteenth century Bavaria could be so interesting?

You know, climate isn't just about temperature. It's also about rainfall, weather patterns, stuff like that. There's a new study from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research out of the UK's Met Office which warns that drought could double or more by the end of the century. And that's the figure for moderate drought. Extreme drought could increase 10-fold, from 3 percent to 30 percent of the Earth's land surface, and severe drought could increase from 8 percent to 40 percent of land. Moderate drought currently affects 25 percent of Earth's land surface, and that is forecast to increase to 50 percent. If you are a subscriber to the American Meteorological Society's Journals Online, you can read about this study here.

Increased drought will mean increased wildfires, and this fire season has been the most severe on record in the western states. If that trend continues, we can expect to see changes in the ecology of the West with the potential for extinction of plant and animal species. In addition, wildfires emit tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding yet another layer of feedback into the climate picture.

University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan has summed up some 866 scientific studies in the December, 2006 issue of the journal Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. You can read the abstract online for free, but to read the full study, you must be a subscriber.

Scientists are surprised at how quickly species are being forced to change to adapt to alterations in their environments, an article on CNN.com noted. I find it interesting to note that CNN.com, FoxNews.com and MSNBC.com all feature pictures of polar bears in their stories. People love polar bears.

Speaking of extinctions - here's an interesting article I found on MSNBC.com today about some new research on what happened in the oceans following a mass extinction 250 million years ago. It's not related to global warming, of course, but I include it to remind people that the Earth's biosphere is not a static thing. Changes, sometimes large, sudden, dramatic changes have occurred in the past and will occur again.

Oh, and another link from MSNBC.com while I'm at it. Seems California bird watchers had an extremely rare - as in "never before" rare - treat recently when a gull native to the Arctic was seen 100 miles east of San Diego. This was the first time this species has ever been seen in California, and to see it within 50 miles of the Mexican border is really amazing. I'm sure that's a sign that the new ice age is right around the corner, right?

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) consulted with 125 researchers and forecasters and reached the conclusion that there is no definite link between global warming and the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. This according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
No link between global warming and cyclones

Tropical cyclone damage has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, but much of that is due to rising populations and the related infrastructure in coastal regions.

In the wake of my post on trees yesterday, it seems appropriate today to post a link to the Washington Post's article this morning on climate change and trees. The National Arbor Day Foundation has just released an updated hardiness zone map - the first since 1990.

Now, even the most skeptical of the skeptics isn't questioning that the Earth is warming. The questions that remain are how much is due to human activity and how much is due to natural variability. The unseasonable warmth recently in the Northeast can be laid at least partially at the doorstep of El Niño, for example. A peek at the Arbor Day Foundation's animation of the changes in hardiness zones from 1990 to 2006 is pretty dramatic.

The warming that has occurred may increase stress on some species of trees, although many will continue to flourish. The purpose of the hardiness zone map is to help people determine which trees are best to plant in their particular location.

After I posted yesterday on the drought in Australia, I got to thinking more about the article and in particular this paragraph:

Australia is the world's biggest exporter of coal and its reliance on the fossil fuel is the major reason the nation of 20 million ranks among the world's biggest carbon polluters per capita.

If you read the story, that paragraph may have stood out to you the way it did to me. Why reference coal in a story about drought? Oh, that's right! To strengthen the connection between the drought and global warming.

On another note, commenter Emiliana Peralta made an excellent point regarding the possibility that Australia's drought has more to do with the El Niño than it does with global warming.

The island of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, has been obliterated by rising seas. The island, located in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, is the first inhabited island to be wiped off the map.

A second populated island in the area, Ghoramara, is two-thirds underwater. Refugees from Lohachara and Ghoramara have fled to Sagar, but that island is also losing land to the sea.

I got a lot of comments on the story of the calving of the Ayles Ice Shelf, including a very informative one from Mauri Pelto, a glaciologist at Nichols College. I sent an e-mail to Dr. Luke Copland, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Ottawa. Dr. Copland was quoted in the article I linked and he was kind enough to respond. Here's the text of the e-mail:

Hi Laura,

Thanks for the good question - there have been many breakups of ice shelves across northern Ellesmere Island over the last century so. When these ice shelves were first discovered in about 1900, they were a total of about 10,000 sq km in area. Today they have reduced in size by about 90%, to about 1000 sq km in area. The Ayles Ice Shelf loss was the largest breakup in at least 25 years, but it is part of the long-term trend of loss over the last century.

The important point to note with all of these losses is that they are essentially permanent. There is no longer enough glacier ice flowing off the land to replace the ice that is being calved into the ocean. Hence these 3000+ year old shelves are now gone forever.

You might also be interested in looking at a media page that we've put together:
http://www.geomatics.uottawa.ca/copland/

Regards,
Luke

Perhaps the loss of these ice shelves is simply due to being in the midst of an interglacial period. Or maybe we're speeding up the process.

Pretty much everyone has noticed the weather is wacky, right? Almost all of North America has had temperatures well above normal so far this winter. I had to look at places in the Rockies to find anyone below normal in the lower 48 - in a quick perusal - and to Alaska to find some significantly cold air. It's 29 below zero (F) as I write this. The normal high is -7. That air will be on the move over the next few days, but won't really drive into the lower 48 as we'd normally see in January. Why? Because we're still dominated by the Pacific jet stream. Arctic air is trapped. And we're not alone. I read an article yesterday which included some recent record warmth in Tibet.

An article from NBC news today asks the question "What's global warming got to do with it?" While the article does support something of a link between our current weather pattern - as Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University says:

"Whatever the natural causes are, they are riding on top of the warming trend that has been induced by humans using the atmosphere as a free place to dump our tailpipe waste."

But overwhelmingly, this year's El Niño is blamed for our bizarro-world weather. It produces a stronger-than-normal southern jet stream, which prevents cold air from moving south.

Last week I wrote an entry about the rare middle ground on global warming - how it doesn't really help to paint a picture so dismal and gloomy that it causes people to give up. As Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research wrote in a BBC Editorial:

The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change.

I was reminded of these things today when I read a piece in The Canadian, which bills itself as "Canada's new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper." The headline grabbed my attention - stating that "Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012." Pause for a minute. Think about that. The world's current population is a few ticks over 6.5 Billion, so this author is claiming that in a mere 5 years, almost three quarters of the world's population will have succumbed. Heck, if that's the case, I might as well go right down to the GM dealership and buy a Hummer. What difference will that make?

A quick read of the article finds it to have some significant holes. First of all, the author is citing a rapid climate warming due to the release of methane caused by the melting of permafrost. This, he says is a "weeks old" scientific theory - which is simply not true. I touched on it back in November, referencing a RealClimate.org entry from October, and methane hydrates were also addressed at RealClimate in December of 2005.

The author then goes on to state that methane in the atmosphere oxidizes into atmospheric carbon dioxide (true) which "lasts for hundreds of thousands of years." Oh really? I thought it stayed in the atmosphere 50-200 years.

If I gave an award for global warming hysteria, this would be the winner.

Had a number of comments on yesterday's entry on Warming and Weather. First of all, commenter Dion linked Monday's RealClimate entry on El Niño, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth. The folks at RealClimate point out that in an ordinary El Niño winter, the amplitude of warming across the northern half of the U.S. averages about 1 degree C (2F). This year's warming is roughly 5 times that amount. They also point out that last winter was also anomalously warm, despite a weak La Nina. That warmth was most striking in January of 2006. They conclude that it's impossible to determine what role each factor is playing in our current warmth.

In reality, the individual roles of deterministic factors such as El Nino, anthropogenic climate change, and of purely random factors (i.e. "weather") in the pattern observed thusfar this winter cannot even in principle be ascertained. What we do know, however, is that both anthropogenic climate change and El Nino favor, in a statistical sense, warmer winters over large parts of the U.S. When these factors act constructively, as is the case this winter, warmer temperatures are certainly more likely. Both factors also favor warmer global mean surface temperatures (the warming is one or two tenths of a degree C for a moderate to strong El Nino). It is precisely for this reason that some scientists are already concluding, with some justification, that 2007 stands a good chance of being the warmest year on record for the globe.

I also had a commenter raise the question of what effect global warming will have on El Niño. The short answer is we don't know. Some have speculated that El Niño/ENSO events will be more frequent or more intense, but no one knows. For more information, see RealClimate, The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

In off-topic news - I'm under the weather today, so this will likely be my only post today. I may be slower than normal in posting comments or responding to email over the next few days. Please bear with me.

In mid-December, NOAA expected 2006 to rank as the third-warmest on record, trailing 1998 and 1934. The unseasonable warmth of December (no state had below-normal temperatures - though as Jesse's blog shows, many states were near normal) and a further evaluation of data, here we stand (image courtesy NOAA):

Andrew Revkin's article in the New York Times on the topic plays up the fact that this is the first time a news release from NOAA has stated that the buildup of greenhouse gases is contributing to warming.

If you're not a regular reader of our other blogs, I would point your attention today to a "book" (Elliot's term, not mine) which he wrote this morning on the weather so far this winter and what's been causing it. It's a pretty solid overview, as one would expect from Elliot.

A tip of that hat to commenter Steve G. for pointing me to an article from yesterday on an Australian study predicting a deadly spike in temperatures by 2070. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization said average annual temperatures in Sydney will rise from the current 78.8 to around 88 by 2070. The rise in temperatures could increase heat-related deaths in people over 65 from the current average of 176 per year to over 1,300 per year, and droughts and fire risk would increase as well.

The study was commissioned by New South Wales, the state that includes Sydney.

Australia's prime minister, John Howard, has been repeatedly criticized for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, making Australia and the Unitie States the only major industrial nations to reject the treaty. China and India were deemed "developing" and thus exempt from Kyoto's restrictions.

Australian power companies issued a report Wednesday saying the best way to slow greenhouse emissions is through the use of nuclear power and retrofitting coal-fired plants to capture carbon dioxide. Prime Minister Howard agreed with those findings.

Beneath Antarctic sea ice lives a complex array of plants and animals, dominated by invertebrates such as sponges, worms and anemones. In areas where the ice breaks out in early summer, algae that rely on light are dominant. University of New South Wales researchers Dr. Emma Johnston and Graeme Clark have been studying the ecosystem and conclude that if global climate change results in reduced ice cover, the shallow-water invertebrate communities are likely to be out-competed by algae.

A study by NASA scientists including lead author Drew Shindell has found that a warmer future climate could lead to increased droughts in already water-stressed regions. The study compares what happened historically with the climate impact of changes in the sun's output and what may happen in the future with warming driven by increased greenhouse gases.

"These findings strongly suggest that greenhouse gases and long-term changes in solar activity can both have major influences on climate via similar processes," said Drew Shindell.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' climate model showed decreasing rainfall in areas such as Mexico, the Southwest United States, parts of North Africa and the Middle East. The models showed rainfall increases in some parts of the globe as well, particularly in equatorial regions and in parts of Southeast Asia.

NOAA has released a report on the climate in January of 2007. Globally, it was the warmest January on record. Eastern Europe and Russia were especially far above normal, and those areas experienced well below normal snow cover. U.S. temperatures for the month as a whole were near normal. Many places in the central and eastern United States started the month with temperatures well above normal, then experienced a sharp change to colder weather.

As always, one day, one month, one season, even one year does not prove anything about long term climate change. It's only when we see trends lasting for multiple years, even decades that we can state with confidence that the climate is changing.

A delegation of Inuit people from the U.S., Canada, Russia and Greenland are heading to Washington, D.C. to testify that global warming is destroying their way of life. It's long been believed that global warming will have the largest impact on Arctic areas, and many areas have already seen shortened winter seasons.

The delegation will testify before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights that the U.S.'s position on global warming is undermining their human rights.

"The impacts of climate change, caused by acts and omissions by the US, violate the Inuit's fundamental human rights protected by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international instruments," the Inuit argued in a letter to the ICHR. "Because Inuit culture is inseparable from the condition of their physical surroundings, the widespread environmental upheaval resulting from climate change violates the Inuit's right to practice and enjoy the benefits of their culture."

NewScientist recently ran a fascinating (if you're a human) and tragic (if you're a turtle) article on how global warming may be causing an imbalance between male and female loggerhead turtles.

According to the article, "The gender of marine turtle offspring is determined by the temperature at which the eggs are incubated: high temperatures lead to a higher proportion of females." Should temperatures rise by two degrees C, male offspring would vanish from the beaches of Florida, which is one of the most important loggerhead turtle nesting grounds in the United States.

While the study the article draws from may make the world's turtle researchers apoplectic and spell doom for Florida's booming loggerhead turtle singles scene, keep in mind that two degrees C is a pretty significant jump in temperatures.

The release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report - or more accurately, the Summary for Policymakers - has heated up debate over whether or not global warming is impacting the intensity of hurricanes, at least according to the Orlando Sentinel. The article highlights conflict between Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado - one of the IPCC assessment's authors, and hurricane expert (and global warming skeptic) Bill Gray, along with several other scientists at the National Hurricane Center (NHC). Just three months ago, the World Meteorological Organization issued a statement on the issue saying, "no firm conclusion can be made."

The debate between Gray and Trenberth got personal last October.

At the 31st annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop in Colorado, the Rocky Mountain News quoted Gray calling Trenberth an opportunist and a Svengali who "sold his soul to the devil to get research funding." Trenberth replied that Gray was no longer a credible scientist and was "one of the contrarians, some of whom get money to spread lies about global warming."

I find two things interesting in all of this. First, with the limited complete data set we have of hurricane information (remember, before the age of satellite technology, storms may have gone completely unrecorded), I don't think it is really possible to know whether we're experiencing an increase in storm intensity/frequency due to a natural cycle or if there is some human-induced forcing at work. Second, this "controversy" is being drawn from the Summary for Policymakers, and it makes sense to wait and see what the full IPCC 4AR has to say before passing judgment. I found a comment from NOAA's Randy Dole on the Prometheus blog which says in essence that when the full IPCC report comes out and can be compared to the WMO document, the areas of agreement will outweigh the areas of disagreement.

I found another article yesterday on the Inuit delegation appearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The article adds some additional information to what we learned from the article I linked back on February 23. The group appeared before the human rights committee Thursday. The most significant fact the new article includes is that the commission, part of the Organization of American States, has no authority over the United States government. Basically, the Inuit are trying to draw more attention to the issue of climate change, and to help make it a bigger issue in American politics.

In an address Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said global warming presents as great a threat to the world as war. He then urged the United States to lead the fight against global warming. Ban will emphasize the climate crisis in a June meeting in Germany with the Group of Eight industrialized nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, the United States and Russia.

"The majority of the United Nations work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict," Ban told an international U.N. school conference on global warming. "But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming."

"In coming decades, changes in our environment and the resulting upheavals from droughts to inundated coastal areas to loss of arable land are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict," said Ban, who became U.N. chief on Jan. 1.

In the ski resort business, the weather is everything. Even if the snow doesn't fall, cold weather allows snowmaking. When the cold doesn't come, the ski season gets shortened and the profits go downhill faster than those insane skiers in the Olympics. The key in Aspen?

"To be in business," says Patrick O'Donnell, who was Aspen's CEO and environmental conscience for a decade before retiring in November, "we rely on putting down 2 feet of good [artificial] snow, good hard snow that we make the last two weeks of October and the first two weeks of November. That way, when March comes, we can still have skiing, we can still get a full rate for our lift tickets."

Aspen's been on the edge in recent years, making snow within a degree or a degree and a half of being able to. Understandably, they have more than a passing interest in global warming, and a greater sense of urgency than most of us about making the kinds of changes that could slow warming down. Aspen has made some significant changes in their business practices to reduce their emissions, and hope to have an impact on the way others live as well. Much as NASCAR could bring alternative fuels into the forefront for its legion of fans, Aspen hopes to inspire the 55 million skiers in this country (many of them affluent) to drive change by taking political action, supporting advocacy groups and making changes in their own lives to reduce their carbon footprints.

Aspen can drive change, but it may well be too late to save that one degree - even if greenhouse gas emissions dropped tremendously today, climate scientists say warming will continue for decades.

We've talked about Brazilian ethanol here before and some readers have raised questions about damage to the Amazon rain forest - not because rain forest is being cut to grow sugar cane, but because sugar cane is pushing other crops into the rain forest region. Protection of the Amazon has been highlighted this week in the run-up to President Bush's trip.

Brazil slowed the loss of the rain forest by 11 percent last year, but if the region's soybean market expands, growers will push into the Amazon region. Farmland farther south in Brazil has largely moved to sugar cane production.

Volume 2 of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report is due out in early April. The document is still undergoing the review and editing process which is still holding up the release of the first volume, originally set for release in February. The second volume deals with the effects of global warming, from water shortages to increases in insect-borne diseases. Food will become more plentiful in the near-term, but shortages will increase in the second half of the next century.

This report-considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research-focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

February sure was cold here in Pennsylvania. The closest reporting station to my house ran 6.8 degrees below normal for the month. And based on the comments I get here, a lot of our resident skeptics live in the north-central and eastern states. So how did February as a whole stack up across the globe? Here's a map of land surface temperatures from NOAA that gives a bit of a global overview:

and blended surface temperature anomalies:

That's a lot of red. According to NOAA, that global temperature anomaly was +0.60°C, 6th warmest February on record.

So how about December-February, known in the northern hemisphere as meteorological winter? Apologies here to my readers in the southern hemisphere. I know it's summer where you are. Here are the same maps from above, only for a Dec-Feb time scale:

For that December-February period, the anomaly is +0.72°C, the warmest on record, 0.07°C warmer than the same period in 2004.

What does this tell us about global warming? Well, of course the answer is virtually nothing because the time scale is simply too small. I post this mostly because of the "Look out the window" comments I've gotten for the last 6 weeks. It's a big world, and what's happening outside any one window doesn't tell us anything, either. You have to look at the big picture.

Speaking of the big picture, I'll wrap up here with one more NOAA graphic. You can draw your own conclusions.

I'd recommend checking out all of NOAA's information on February and December-February if that's something of interest to you.

New research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Penn State University indicates that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3% reduction in the density of the Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017. Recent observations have shown that this decrease in density has begun, confirming a prediction made by NCAR in 1989.

Carbon dioxide cools the thermosphere, even though it acts to warm the atmosphere near Earth’s surface (the troposphere). This paradox occurs because the atmosphere thins with height. Near Earth’s surface, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation escaping Earth, but before the gas molecules can radiate the energy to space, frequent collisions with other molecules in the dense lower atmosphere force the carbon dioxide to release energy as heat, thus warming the air.

In the much thinner thermosphere, a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs energy when it collides with an oxygen molecule, but there is ample time for it to radiate energy to space before another collision occurs. The result is a cooling effect. As it cools, the thermosphere settles, so that the density at a given height is reduced.

The thermosphere is also affected by the 11-year solar activity cycle, with the thermosphere becoming less dense during the active phase and more dense as solar activity wanes.

Forecasts of upper-level air density can help agencies such as NASA plan for the fuel needs of satellites, as lower density in the thermosphere means that satellites require less fuel.

No, I'm not talking about baseball - although it's soon time to get into baseball mode in the Hannon household - I'm talking about the Baltimore oriole, state bird of Maryland. Seems that the birds have been moving north. Southern species such as the brown pelican - state bird of Louisiana - have been found more frequently in Maryland recently. One thousand brown pelican chicks hatched in Maryland last year.

Environmental scientists with the state and with the University of Maryland both blame climate change for effects on species across the state. No word here on whether Maryland's famous blue crabs have been affected.

A new study from the University of Wisconsin (no -Madison needed, thank you) and the University of Wyoming predicts many climate zones we have today will disappear by 2100, replaced by climates we don't have today.

Climates most at likely to disappear are those near the poles and in tropical highlands. The tropics and subtropics may develop climates unlike anything seen today. These predictions are important for policy and management strategies, which are currently based on present conditions.

Using models that translate carbon dioxide emission levels into climate change, Williams and his colleagues foresee the appearance of novel climate zones on up to 39 percent of the world's land surface area by 2100, if current rates of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue. Under the same conditions, the models predict the global disappearance of up to 48 percent of current land climates. Even if emission rates slow due to mitigation strategies, the models predict both climate loss and formation, each on up to 20 percent of world land area.

The full study is available at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a subscription only site. The abstract is free.

I'll be honest right up front. I'm having a hard time working today. It's beautiful outside my window. Gorgeous, even. The sun is shining, the birds are singing - I want to go for a walk. And I'm going to. As soon as I write my second and final entry here for the day.

A journal called Environment and Urbanization will next month publish the first global study to identify populations at risk from rising sea levels and more intense cyclones. The key for being at risk? Living in coastal areas, ten meters or less above sea level. One tenth of the world's population lives within that zone, and populations more and more appear to be migrating to coastal regions.

The study gives no time frame for the rising lea levels, but suggests solutions may involve relocating people and building protective engineering structures. It adds nations should consider halting or reducing population growth in coastal areas.

This brought to mind a portion of Bjørn Lomborg's House testimony last week - the population of Dade and Broward counties in South Florida is now greater than was the population of all 109 coastal counties from Texas to Virginia in 1930. Florida is now the 4th most populous state in the nation. It's estimated that over 25,000 people move to Florida each month. Other coastal areas are growing rapidly as well. How would the U.S. go about reducing that population growth? People want to live where the quality of life is high. These sea level rise risks aren't an immediate threat, and people aren't going to plan their lives around something that's not even impacting their consciousness. These population growth statistics show that even the very real threat of hurricane losses don't keep people from moving to coastal areas, and from building homes and businesses in high-risk areas.

So now I'm going to head outside and get some fresh air. I need it after reading today's comments.

Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany have found that early humans developed larger brains as they adapted to colder climates. Most likely, it was the need to find ways to keep warm and manage fluctuating food supplies that drove the evolution of larger brains.

Gallup and Ash suggest that while our understanding of brain evolution remains incomplete, the study provides evidence of the role of climate and migration away from the equator as selective forces in promoting human intelligence, and that the recent trend toward global warming may be reversing a trend that led to brain expansion in humans.

The doors are open to so many remarks here that would get me in hot water. I think I'll just say perhaps my global warming-related headaches are caused by brain shrinkage.

CBS' 60 Minutes went to a Patagonian glacier and to Antarctica to view "the fastest warming place on Earth." The story aired on their broadcast last night. Video and text of the piece are available at the CBSNews site, along with a photo essay, and some added features like Scott Pelley's reporter's notebook and interactives on global warming and Antarctica.

Some interesting facts here on how many people in the world get their drinking water from glacial runoff - 1.5 billion - and how quickly the continued retreat of glaciers could result in water shortages, especially in South America, China and India.

The glacier Pelley and the 60 Minutes crew visited in Patagonia has retreated 9 miles in the past 100 years. When they visited the top of the glacier, they found it was blackened by earth and volcanic ash. The scientist in me wants to know how long it's been blackened. That's going to play a huge role in the speed of melting, as white ice/snow reflect sunlight, while a black surface absorbs sunlight. It seems to me to be obvious there are factors other than human-induced warming at play in the retreat of this glacier. Although I don't have verification of this, it seems clear that drought is playing some role in the glacier's retreat. Fresh snow would cover that black surface and "feed" the glacier, slowing it's retreat. I've got an email in to AccuWeather.com's international expert Jim Andrews - if he has any information to share about the region, I'll include it in the comments here.

This satellite image of Lake Superior was taken in mid-March, 2003, and shows the lake nearly covered in ice, which was up to two feet thick in some areas. Temperatures at Marquette, Michigan averaged almost 7 degrees below normal in February of 2003. For comparison's sake, February of this year in Marquette averaged 4.3 degrees below normal. Lake Superior freezes over completely about once every 20 years. The rest of the time, the lake's size and depth keep some areas ice-free.

A study published by the American Geophysical Union on March 23 reports that the lake is warming even faster than the climate around it due to reduced ice cover. Summer surface temperatures are up by about 4.5 degrees since 1979. Daily lake temperature records have been kept at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan for 102 years.

Wait! If the lake is warming so fast, how come it was almost completely frozen over in 2003? Same reason we may be experiencing global warming even if it's unseasonably cold outside your window this holiday weekend - one is weather, a short-term, chaotic phenomena. The other is climate - stable and non chaotic. As a friend of mine has said, if you go outside and you say, "this is not how it's supposed to be," then you know the difference between weather and climate.

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is in the midst of issuing it's 4th Assessment report, the first since 2001. The report will be issued in four volumes, three produced by three working groups, and the fourth a "synthesis" report. Working Group I, who released their Summary for Policymakers back in February, assesses the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Working Group II, whose Summary for Policymakers was released today, assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences of climate change and options for adapting to it. Working Group III assesses options for limited greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change; their report is due in May.

So today's report focuses on the impacts of climate change, who and what is vulnerable to climate change and how we can adapt to climate change. I'd encourage people to at least take a look at the summary - it must be yeoman's work to try to cull 1500+ pages of work into a 23 page summary. I'm hesitant to try to summarize it even further here, but I'll hit a few of the highlights.

Warming is already having an impact on agriculture, human health and human activities. Some impacts are positive, some negative. Looking into the future, the negative impacts of warming are expected to outweight the positive impacts, though in the short term there will continue to be some positive impacts from warming. Hardest hit ecologically will be those species with limited options for migration - those in polar regions and in tropical highlands. Coastal wetlands are at risk.

In the short term, warming may have some positive impact, as deaths from cold exposure are reduced, but heat waves, water shortages, malnutrition, disease and higher levels of ground level ozone will produce health problems which outweigh the positive impacts.

The summary then breaks the world down into regions - Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Europe, Latin America, North America, Polar regions and Small Islands - and that surprised me. Global climate models are not particularly good at making regional forecasts, and the climate is the base upon which all of the impact predictions are made.

After a brief look into possible impacts beyond the next century, the report turns to response to climate change. Since Working Group III has responsibility for the topic of reducing greenhouse gases and mitigating climate change, this report sticks to adaptation strategies. Through all of the impacts and adaptation strategies it's clear that some of the hardest hit areas of the world will be the poorest areas.

More reaction to this portion of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report can be found at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times, among many other news sources.

Americans live on caffeine. Some of us get ours from tea or various carbonated drinks, but for the majority, coffee is king. More than 50 percent of Americans drink coffee every day, at a staggering total of over 330 million cups daily.

What will a warming world do to coffee production? Most coffee is grown in the tropical region, with many of the finest varieties grown in tropical highlands. Tropical highlands - among those ecosystems most at risk from global warming, according to the most recent report from the IPCC.

Analyst F.O. Licht warns that global warming is going to present new challenges to the world's coffee growers, perhaps forcing them to seek higher, cooler land. The bee population may be reduced, hindering fertilization of the trees, and pests may increase.

I've written a lot about the debate surrounding the effect global warming will have on hurricane activity, particularly in the Atlantic. A new study from scientists at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami and NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), scheduled to be published today in Geophysical Research Letters concludes increasing wind shear could decrease Atlantic Hurricane activity.

Vertical wind shear is one of the most significant inhibitors of tropical cyclone development, and can quickly weaken an already developed tropical system. Using 18 different computer models, researchers found an increase in wind shear due to a slowing of the Pacific Walker Circulation.

Chris Landsea, Chief Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, has weighed in with his opinion of this new research at Prometheus.

Elliot Abrams has added a new entry to the Global Perspectives blog, this one on the issue of wind shear and hurricanes. You may remember my entry on this subject. Katie also briefly mentioned it in Headline: Earth. The University of Illinois has a web site with a brief animation that shows how decreased wind shear aids tropical cyclone development while increased wind shear suppresses it.

Again, any comments on Elliot's blog entry can be made here.

In honor of Queen Elizabeth's visit to the U.S., a story from East Anglia today. The story is from the New York Times, so free registration may be required. It seems that the erosion which has been occurring along the coast of East Anglia for the past century has been picking up speed in recent years. Many scientists say this is a result of global warming.

The article goes on to say "to make matters worse for coastal farmers, the government has stopped maintaining large parts of the network of seawalls that once protected the area." This raises a question for me - how much of a role do the un-maintained sea walls play in the increase in erosion rate? The article states that governments around the globe have taken on a policy of "managed retreat," in which they decide fighting all the effects of climate change isn't worth taxpayer money. Doesn't it seem logical that in those areas where measures that had been taken to prevent something like erosion are discontinued, there's going to be an increase in the rate of the erosion? It would be interesting to see a timeline showing the increase of the erosion rate and highlighting the point at which the government chose to stop maintaining the sea walls.

Local farmers and landowners are the losers in this situation, as some locations lose swaths of land 30 feet wide to the sea each year.

I couldn't pass up that headline, though the potential change is tiny. Seems that researchers at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology analyzed the IPCC's predictions for oceans and found that rising sea levels and a redistribution of ocean waters will "likely" affect the Earth's rotation and the length of days. How much? Well, by the end of the 22nd century, days could be shortened by approximately 0.12 milliseconds.

From BusinessWeek today comes a brief look at the impact of warming on the global economy.

Central to this issue of course is that today's emissions will place a significant burden on future generations. It is always difficult to weigh current costs with future benefits - we've talked about that with individual efficiency, how sometimes it's difficult to justify spending a little more for a CFL bulb, or an Energy Star rated appliance even though those purchases pay for themselves over the life of the product. How much more difficult to spend now to benefit future generations? Especially over an issue there's still so much disagreement over, and especially when international concerns add yet another layer of complexity to the question.

The BusinessWeek article makes reference to the Stern Review, a British economic overview of global warming which was released last fall. Stern has been criticized by some economists for the conclusions of the review. The Christian Science Monitor has another interesting article on Stern's report and his conclusions.

The Southern Ocean - the largest sink for atmospheric carbon in the world - is losing its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, according to researchers. The scientists, led by Corinne Le Quere of Germany's Max Planck Institute, blame increasing winds over the ocean surface - which they also tie to human-produced climate change for the reduction in the ocean's ability to sequester carbon.

The winds, the scientists say, are increasing due to the depletion in upper-atmosphere ozone over the Southern Ocean, which has produced large temperature changes throughout the atmosphere, and the uneven nature of global warming, which has also resulted in tighter temperature gradients across the region. The winds mix natural carbon which is normally held in deep waters to the surface, which reduces the surface water's capacity to absorb additional carbon.

"This is the first time that we've been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink," Le Quere said. "This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of 'feedback' will continue and intensify during this century."

The full study can be downloaded at sciencexpress.org, a subscription-only site.

Have you heard about the disappearing honey bees? A strange phenomenon, not well understood, called Colony Collapse Disorder is causing entire colonies of honey bees to disappear. Half of all U.S. honey bee colonies disappeared between 1971 and 2006 due to a number of factors including urbanization, pesticide use, mites and other pests and a diminishing number of beekeepers. Since late last year, the rate of these disappearances has spiked.

Some have called this an "agricultural emergency" as honey bees play such a large role in pollinating food-bearing plants, particularly fruits and vegetables. In fact, nearly one third of U.S. produce is pollinated by honey bees.

The cause of the disappearance of the bees is still a mystery, but lately I've heard global warming mentioned a couple of times. The link above from CBS news was the first time I heard the potential connection, and this weekend I came upon this blog entry which connects declining bee populations with climate change.

The sudden decline in the bee population may or may not be related to global warming. Whether it is or is not, it's a topic worth following.

Dr. Joe Sobel has written a couple of blog entries in the last week or so about issues related to global warming. Read his thoughts and if you have comments, you can feel free to e-mail Dr. Joe or comment here.

In this week's edition of Headline: Earth, Katie Fehlinger's climate change headlines included a reference to a new study released by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Insitute. This study, lead by Dr. James Hansen, concludes that the Earth's climate is approaching a dangerous tipping point. A tipping point is a threshold at which moderate temperature change is dramatically amplified by feedback mechanisms. One of my first entries on this blog talked about the potential positive feedback produced by the loss of snow and ice cover in the Arctic.

This study concludes that increased warming of only about 1° C (1.8° F) above 2000 levels is likely to be dangerous. "According to study co-author Makiko Sato of Columbia's Earth Institute, 'the temperature limit implies that CO₂ exceeding 450 ppm is almost surely dangerous, and the ceiling may be even lower.'"

Dr. Hansen has been one of the loudest and most urgent voices on anthropogenic global warming for the better part of two decades.

Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest point in Africa, has been losing snow and ice cover for more than 100 years. The ice cap was about 12.5 square miles in 1889, based on a rough survey. In 2003 it was just over 1.5 square miles. Some have pointed to this melting as a sign of global warming. A new article in American Scientist suggests this is not the case.

Researchers Philip W. Mote and Georg Kaser confirm that glaciers at the mid-latitudes have been shrinking due to atmospheric warming, but they say that the glaciers on Kilimanjaro - located just 3 degrees from the equator - have shrunk for different reasons, probably unrelated to AGW. In fact, most of the shrinkage occurred prior to 1950 and the most probable explanation for the changes have to do with reduced snowfall and increased solar radiation.

Past climate reconstructions from nearby Lake Victoria indicate that several decades in the late the 19th century were wet, followed by a sharp decline in precipitation amounts. As precipitation decreased, cloud cover decreased as well. Increased incoming solar radiation sped the process of sublimation (ice changing phase to water vapor). Sublimation can take place in air temperatures well below freezing, but requires about eight times as much energy as melting. These changes in the regional climate shifted the glaciers' mass balance, causing them to shrink. The shape of the summit and of the glaciers also play a role in the changes in the past century.

The researchers say that if global warming has played a role in the shrinking of Kilimanjaro's ice, it's only been in the past few decades. It is possible that greenhouse gas accumulations have changed atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns across the region.

This article is one I'd recommend to anyone interested in gaining some understanding of how glaciers grow and shrink and what climate factors can play a role in their cycles. It contains a lot of information, but is written in an engaging and nontechnical way that anyone can grasp.

Researchers at the University of Victoria in British Columbia have modeled changes to ocean wave patterns over the 20th and 21st centuries have found that global warming is speeding up planetary waves in the ocean. Planetary waves exist in both the atmosphere and the ocean, so it's important to note that this research is based on ocean waves.

Planetary waves are slow-moving, but this new research indicates that waves will speed up by an additional 20 to 40 percent of pre-industrial speeds by the end of the 21st century. These waves have a major effect on large-scale ocean circulation, which impacts weather and climate.

Bogi Hansen, a scientist from the Faaroe Islands has been studying the warm, Gulf Stream waters of the Atlantic Ocean, and probably not watching some of those recent weather disaster motion pictures from Hollywood. His research and recent climate models seem to contradict the idea that that Europe would go into a sudden Ice Age because the release of cold water from melting Arctic ice would shut down the Gulf Stream. In the article from MSNBC, his research states that there will only be a slight weakening of the Gulf Stream over the next several decades, which would have a positive impact on the the temperatures across Europe over the next century. So, instead of warming 5-7 degrees F (3-4 degrees C) from global warming, they would see an increase of 4-5 degrees F (2-3 degrees C), which is a huge difference in terms of long term climate. It appears that the strongest argument in this article is the fact that the Gulf Stream is in very little danger of falling apart or reversing, but a slow weakening is more likely. In terms of how much this would offset global warming in Europe still seems in question and I do not think we will really know this answer until we actually see the weakening trend begin in the North Atlantic.

The research also stated that the decline in the ocean's salinity over the past 40 years was not due to the influx of fresh water from glacier runoff, but more due to a change in wind patterns and storm tracks. This could very well be true, but we are only talking a 40 year period, and this might not be the case over the next 100 years or more.

Robert Henson of the University of Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado states that global warming may be a good thing for the Colorado ski industry. In the article by David Frey from CBS4Denver.com Henson says as the snow levels rise due to global warming over the coming decades the higher elevations of the Colorado resorts will capitalize. The idea is that a large portion of ski areas across the U.S. and other countries are at a lower elevation compared to the Colorado resorts, and that they will suffer due to a greater loss of natural snow, The result will be an increase in business for the Colorado resorts at the expense of the resorts at a lower elevation outside the state.

I am not sure if this would work out for Colorado as much as he thinks. What if global warming leads to an even drier climate in the Rockies? I think the true advantage might be the fact that the difference in the length of the ski season from higher Colorado resorts to the majority of the lower resorts would grow, allowing the Colorado resorts to have a higher percentage of their profit coming from being open for a longer period of time. This is already the case now, but down the road it may be a lot longer.

The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently stated in a Washington Post opinion column that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by climate change and drought, according to an article I found in the Maltastar.com.

The Secretary General cited that the rise in the Indian Ocean water temperatures--due to global warming--disrupted the monsoons, causing a 40% decrease in rain in the region over the past two decades. I do not consider myself a global warming expert, but that seems a little like a stretch to me. His words may very well end up being correct down the road, but I think we need more than two decades of drought in that region make that link. He should of just stated that the long term drought in itself may have led to the massacre and leave it at that for now. That in itself is still a big story.

A recent edition of NewScientist magazine listed 26 of the most common climate myths and misconceptions (Climate Change; A Guide for the Perplexed).

The article takes on a wide variety of myths, including human CO2 emissions are too small to matter and the oceans are cooling. It also includes my personal favorite, it's too cold where I live--a little warming will be great, since that one allows for the possibility of a personal belief in global warming and its potential disasters, but as long as I'm more comfortable, it's fine with me!

I'm certainly not saying that this article has all of the answers, but it's certainly an article that both skeptics and believers of AGW might find interesting.

A group of six U.S. scientists have warned that our planet is in imminent peril due to global warming. In the article from Rawstory.com they state that global warming may run out of control and become a great danger to humans and creatures. The scientists say that the recent UN Panel report on climate change from this past February underestimates the scale of sea-level rise this century. The UN report said that sea-levels could rise as much as 18-59 cm (7 inches-2 feet) by 2100, while the findings from this group of scientists stated that it could rise by several meters! Several meters is not very specific, but it looks like they are saying that ocean levels would rise at least 4 feet or more by 2100.

A recent study published in the Journal of Science concludes that melting icebergs from Antarctica may help offset global warming. I found this story on Mongabay.com. The article states that icebergs as large as a dozen miles across are a surprise hotspot for biological productivity as they break away from the continent. The icebergs attract seabirds, phytoplankton, krill and several fish species, which in turn attract many other forms of sea life, leading to the absorption of a large amount of carbon dioxide.

In a recent study by the National Wildlife Federation, the popular Flowering Dogwood Tree could be extinct within the next 80 years. According to the Suffolk News-Herald, the report states that thirty-five states are in danger of losing their state tree due to global warming. The NWF says that there will be more drought and also an increase in flooding due to a greater number of downpours from global warming. This combination would especially take a toll on the Flowering Dogwood, making it more susceptiple to blight and garden pests.

I almost do not know what type of trees to plant in my yard anymore! My Birch tree is a magnet for every kind of insect. The disgusting Gypsy Moths are all over the place and eating what they can, then dropping their feces on me as I mow the lawn underneath (real nice!). Some type of disease or small bug has hit my Hybrid Poplar, which by the way was supposed to be disease and pest resistant. Red Maples just do not grow as well as they used to and the beautiful Sugar Maples are dying away here in central PA. The good news is that the Gypsy Moths are about ready to begin their transformation, but the bad news is that the Japanese Beetle is on the way. Right now, I would recommend the Pine, Silver Maple and the Norway Maple. All seem to withstand the assaults and are fast growers.

We've all heard about the potential disastrous consequences related to global warming, but no one seems to be talking about the possibility of global warming causing higher pizza prices, at least that I know of. Let me be the first (and probably the last).

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but bear with me. Many people are promoting the use of ethanol (alcohol made from corn) as a possible partial solution to global warming. A whyfile.org article (Alcohol: Cool Solution to Global Warming?) explains the logic. Not everyone agrees that ethanol will not help to ease any global warming concerns as is explained in this Reuters article (Ethanol May Not Ease Global Warming: UN) that was found in the Sydney Morning Herald indicates; however, more ethanol is being produced.

According to a recent article on ABC News (How More Ethanol Means Pricier Pizza), an increase in production of ethanol has resulted in higher dairy prices since more corn is being used for fuel rather than food for cattle. So, there you have it: more ethanol to try to combat global warming means higher dairy prices, which means more expensive cheese and more expensive pizza. That's right--global warming is causing higher pizza prices!!

Canadian Scientists have concluded that High Arctic ponds are now beginning to evaporate thanks to the effects of global warming. In the article from ScienceDaily, Dr.'s John Smol and Marianne Douglas have been measuring water quality of the ponds over a 24-year period, and have noted a steady increase in salt concentration due to evaporation caused by global warming. The ponds are the most common source of surface water in many polar regions.

Mount Everest looks a lot different than it did 54 years ago.

In an article posted on the The Discovery Channel Website, the sons of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay told The Independent, which is a British Newspaper, that their father's would no longer recognize the world's highest mountain, explaining that base camp is now 132 feet lower than what it was 54 years ago because ice is melting from the top and side due to global warming. Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were the first to officially summit Everest back in 1953. The glacier where the two made their base camp has retreated 3 miles in the past 20 years! The greatest danger from the melting glaciers on the mountain is the formation of huge lakes, which can suddenly burst their banks, resulting in massive floodwaters.

Image is courtesy of Wikipedia

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Michael Abberton, a scientist from the UK, believes that finding a way to help cows belch less can help reduce global warming. In the article posted on China View, Abberton states that there is a common misperseption about how methane gets into the atmosphere and that it is actually through belching rather than the other end. In the UK, 7% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by agriculture, and methane makes of 37% of that total. Abberton said that introducing easier-to-digest legumes through plant breeding and developing different species of grass that are also more digestible would reduce methane emissions.

Devastating flooding and extreme summer heat could impact parts of the Northeast U.S. by the end of the century unless the world sharply cuts greenhouse gas emissions according to a new study by the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) in collaboration with 50 scientists and economists. In the article from Reuters, Peter Frumhoff, the Director of Science and Policy at the UCS also released these predictions from the study....

1. New York City could be hit once a decade with extreme flooding that is typically only seen once a century. Boston, Massachusetts and Atlantic City, NJ might see this type of flooding every two years.

2. Northeast Cities from New York City to Concord, New Hampshire may have to deal with 25+ days of 100 degree heat.

3. Shade trees such as hemlocks and maples could die due to the warmer weather and an increase in parasites.

Frumhoff stated that the flooding risks across the Northeast could be lowered if Global Warming gas emissions are cut 80% by the year 2050.

An article in the Kansas City Star by master of wine and wine sommelier, Doug Frost, titled Global Warming has its Upside, gives details about how a warming climate would help vineyards in certain parts of the world. In fact, he gives details on how the warm weather of the past decade has improved the output of vineyards in Germany and significantly altered--he says improved--the flavor of wine from northern France.

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve; Image courtesy of Wikipedia

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has issued an extensive new report on the effects of global warming on our national parks. The report is titled "Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming and Our National Parks" and includes information on what the organization believes can be done to save our national parks.

The NPCA should not be confused with the National Park Service, which is a government agency or its official non-profit partner, The National Park Foundation. The NPCA is an independent organization that was founded in 1919 and has over 325,000 members and supporters, with a mission "to protect and enhance America's national parks for present and future generations."

Global Warming may actually lead to a cooler climate for Newfoundland and Labrador, according to a Canadian Scientist in an article by CTV.

George Rose, a professor specializing in Ocean and Fisheries Science at the Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland says that melting ice from glaciers on Baffin Island and Greenland due to global warming will further cool the chilly Labrador Current, which flows southward from the Arctic to the Grand Banks just southeast of Newfoundland.

The current already has a strong influence on the climate of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the lowering of the water temperatures should have an overall cooling effect on the climate. Rose also believes that a cooler climate across Newfoundland and Labrador would shift the seal population into more northern waters and impact fish species.

As some of you know, I also write a Canadian Weather Blog, and I look at the weather across Newfoundland on a regular basis. Certainly a very tough climate up there! At this point, I think Rose's conclusion makes a lot of sense, assuming there is long-term global warming, but the degree of cooling is still a big question to me.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

A study posted on Science Express says that smaller, thawing glaciers are a much more immediate threat when it comes to the anticipated rise in sea levels this century compared to the much larger ice sheets. Even though these smaller glaciers only contain 1% of the total water locked up in the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, they still could account for 6% of the predicted sea rise by 2100 if they continue to melt, which could add 4 to 10 inches to the world's sea level by the end of the century.

The lead author of the study, Mark Meier, from the University of Colorado at Boulder, says that if you add the melted ice sheets into the equation there could be an overall sea level rise by 3.3 feet which could be catastropic, but he does not see this happening for a long time, and certainly not by the end of the century. Currently there are 100 million people who live within 3.3 vertical feet of sea level.

Large chunks of ice, one weighing up to 50 pounds fell from the sky recently over Dubuque, Iowa. The larger chunks smashed through a woman's roof and ripped through nearby trees. The origin of the ice is still unknown, but authorities have theorized that the chunks either fell from an airplane or naturally accumulated high in the atmosphere since there were no thunderstorms nearby at the time. According to witness Karle Wigginton, the original chunk of ice was the size of a basketball, pure white in color and smooth in texture.

In the article from Pennlive.com, David Travis, a professor of geography and geology at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater has studied this phenomenon and said it's possible that the ice could have been a megacryometeor, which is similar to a hailstone, but without the thunderstorm.

Travis' research team speculates the phenomenon could be linked to global warming, which could make the tropopause portion of the atmosphere colder, moister and more turbulent. Fellow blogger Jesse Ferrell blogged about a similar occurrence this past January (Giant Ice Block Smashes Car in Florida).

That plant hardiness map that you see in certain publications may be out of date, according to many horticultural professionals.

In the Chicago Tribune article, "Climate Change Warms Up the Plant Hardiness Map", Woody Nelson, vice president of communications for the National Arbor Day Foundation states that many areas have jumped one or two zones higher due to a warming climate.

Most gardeners have relied on the Agricultural Departments hardiness zone map to determine which plants are appropriate for a given area, but the USDA has not revised the map since 1990, but plans to do so as soon as this year.

The National Arbor Day Foundation couldn't wait, so they made their own map, which according to the foundation reflects recent reality. Their Hardiness Zone map can be seen here.

A study done by the University of Alabama in Huntville disputes the widely, but not completely accepted theory that man-made global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping cirrus clouds.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage area of these cirrus clouds. During month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system they noticed that as the atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decreased. This is opposite of what the leading climate models forecast, which is as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in these heat-trapping cirrus clouds. A more detailed explanation of their findings is in this news release from the University.

Spencer expects these finds to be controversial. "I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming, but this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."

In a forecast update, researchers from the University of Colorado on Thursday stated that there is now a 92% probability that Arctic sea ice will melt to a record low this September. partially due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Arctic sea ice has been measured by satellites since the 1970s according to the Reuters Article, so the official record keeping for this statistic is only 30+ years old or so.

A rapid disintegration of sea ice in July is the main reason for a change in the forecast which was originally made in April.

September is usually the month that marks the annual minimum of sea ice extent. The current record low for sea ice in September was set in 2005.

The research department used satellite data from the U.S. Department of Defense and temperature records from NOAA.

The sometimes fatal flesh-eating disease, otherwise known as Leishmaniasis is on the rise, and scientists from the University of Hull are attributing this increase to global warming.

According to the article from ScienceDaily, Leishmaniasis is caused by a parasite transmitted from the bite of the sand fly, which is usually only found in tropical climates. The concern from the researchers is that rising temperatures will allow these sand flies to expand into more countries, and perhaps even through Europe. In addition to global warming, the increased military presence in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan mean that this horrible disease is affecting more people than ever before, according to lead researcher Dr. Ross Boyle.

Boyle and his team are currently working on an improved treatment for Leishmaniasis.

Northwest Alaska hunters are seeing the effects of climate change first hand according to a short article from the Anchorage Daily News, posted through the SitNews.

-Arctic sea ice is normally within 30 miles of Wainwright, Alaska during August, but today it is more than 300 miles away.

-The walrus kill is down by 80% as the ice has retreated and forced the walruses away from the usual hunting grounds. Some walruses have tried to swim toward the beaches a lot earlier than normal, since the ice that is far off the coast is on top of water that is too deep for the walruses to reach the sea floor and eat. Hunters have instead gone after the walruses while they are in the water, using harpoons, which is not the usual method.

In the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, the sea ice is melting so fast that newly undiscovered islands are beginning to appear, according to an article by Reuters.

"Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate." said Norwegian Environmental Minister Helen Bjoernoy at a seminar Monday with 40 scientists and politicians. She also believes that this accelerations may be faster than predicted by the U.N. Climate panel earlier this year.

Polar bear and seals are suffering because the sea ice that they rely on to hunt has melted away.

Here is the link to the full article.

Global warming is threatening popular sport fish off the Atlantic Coast and other fish worldwide, says Dan Kipnis, a long time charter boat captain who is now an environmentalist working for the National Wildlife Federation.

The two major threats to fish are increasing acid levels and rising sea temperatures, according to Kipnis in an article from The State. Acid, which is a byproduct of CO2 emissions, "eats the shells" of crabs, certain plankton and krill that young fish depend on for survival, said Kipnis. Popular Red Drum also is not spawning when it should be because the water is too hot.

Two species of fish, the gag grouper and the vermilion snapper are on the decline off the Southeast coast, and the U.S. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has proposed recreational and commercial harvest limits for these particular fish.

David Whittaker of the Department of Natural Resources believes that higher earth temperatures can lead to droughts that kill marsh grass, which is necessary for certain young fish to survive.

I just got this press release from NOAA in my mailbox. This one should certainly spur some conversation!

A just released study from NOAA's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colorado says that greenhouse gases accounted for more than half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States last year. The study also found that it was very unlikely that the 2006 El Nino played any role, but that some other natural factors likely contributed to the unusual warmth.

The team analyzed 42 simulations of the Earth's climate from 18 climate models provided for the latest assessment by the IPCC. The results of the analysis showed that greenhouse gases produced warmth over the entire U.S. in the model projections, much like the warming pattern that was observed last year across the county. Also, the U.S. temperature pattern of widespread warming was completely inconsistent with the pattern expected from El Nino.

The authors of the study also estimate that there is a 16% chance that 2007 will bring record-breaking warmth.

I expect a lot of comments on this.

NASA Scientists believe they have confirmed that global warming has caused a 5% increase in rainfall over the tropics during the period from 1979 to 2005, while little change was shown elsewhere on the planet.

According to the LiveScience article, the rainiest years were mostly after 2001. The increase in rainfall was concentrated over the tropical oceans, and less so over land.

"A warming climate is the most plausible cause of this observed trend of tropical rainfall." said study team member Robert Alder.

Check out the link, there is a graph and a map showing the increase in rainfall during the period, which you can enlarge.

Graphic courtesy of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center

Scientists from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center at Colorado University are saying that the Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer, leaving sea ice levels in the region at record lows.

Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist from the center, said "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we're still losing ice." Serreze and others now feel that if the increased rate of melting continues, the summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030, which is much earlier than the estimates of 2070 to 2100 they made a couple of years ago.

According to the article from the Guardian Unlimited, the Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. BTW, I did a piece on that story a few weeks ago.

Sea ice usually melts in the Arctic summer and freezes again in the winter, but according to Dr. Serreze, that would be difficult this year.

Dr. Serreze also states that changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but he said the main culprit was man-made global warming.

I expect to get a lot of commentary, especially from Patrick and Andrew on this one!

Architecture 2030 has released a visual study of what several U.S. coastal cities would look like after a sea level rise of one meter. You can click on the different cities marked on the map and the it will show what the city looks like now and what they think it would look like after the rise.

Architecture 2030, is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded by architect Edward Mazria, whose goal is achieve a dramatic reduction in the global warming causing greenhouse gas emissions of the building sector by changing the way buildings and developments are planned, designed and constructed.

Images courtesy of the European Space Agency

Satellite imagery from the European Space Agency has confirmed that the famous Northwest Passage has opened up (ice-free) for the first time in recorded history.

The Northwest passage is a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable. The ESA satellite mosaic above shows the most direct Northwest Passage route indicated by the yellow line. Darker-gray areas represent ice-free areas while the greener shades indicate sea ice.

According to Leif Toudal Pederson of the Danish National Space Centre, the Arctic has seen a 1 million sq. kilometer reduction in sea ice in just 1 year which is extreme.

According to an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, several ornithological researchers suspect global warming is leading to changes in bird behavior, namely in regards to bird distribution, population and migratory patterns.

The American Bird Conservancy predicts doom for more than half of the migrating species in the Great Lakes region if warming continues at its current pace from a report issued in its publication titled "A Birdwatcher's Guide to Global Warming."

Here is just a sampling of some of the behavioral changes that are being noticed in the Midwest.......

--The Northern Mockingbird, more of a southern bird, has expanded far into the upper Midwest.
--Mississippi Kites nested in southern Ohio recently, which is the farthest north ever recorded.
--Cerulean Warbler population is down 70% over the past 25 years.
--Orioles and Black-Capped Chickadees are becoming much more common in northern areas, while diminishing on the southern end of their normal range.

Question to the readers......Have you noticed any changes in bird behavior or population where you live over the past several years?

Not everyone is buying into this belief. Kenn Kaufmann, a birding author feels some of these predictions are extreme. He suspects several factors such as available food sources, increasing availability of insects and vegetation changes have contributed to a natural ebb & flow.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology has been studying these behavioral changes, but still does not have any direct answer. "It's not just climate change, although that certainly is having an effect," said Cornell Spokeswoman Patricia Leonard.

Sir John Holmes, a British diplomat who is also known as the UN's under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said dire predictions about the impact of global warming on humanity were already coming true, according to an article in the Guardian. A record number of floods, droughts and storms around the world this year amount to a climate change "mega disaster", warned Holmes.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) has issued 13 emergency "flash" appeals so far this year, which is already 3 more than the previous record set back in 2005.

According to the UN, only half of the international disasters two years ago dealt with by Ocha had anything to with climate, while this year all but one of 13 emergency appeals is climate related. Here I go again, while the UN could eventually end up being correct in their viewpoint, I feel that we need more weather data and other evidence to compare over a much longer period to establish a trend in order to prove that many of these individual disasters were indeed directly related to climate change and not just a rare, extreme weather event or an ongoing atmospheric circulation. They may be on to something, but it is just too early in the ballgame to be that certain about it in my opinion. What do you think?

A new study suggests that man-made global warming is making a large portion of the planet more humid. That should not be too much of a shocker since warmer air can hold more moisture, but there is more to this story from the China Post.

According to the study, which was published in the journal Nature, the amount of moisture in the air near the surface increased 2.2% between 1973 and 2002 and that computer models suggest the only explanation is man-made global warming. Unfortunately, I did not see anything in the article about what happened between 2002 and 2006.

"The humidity change is an important contribution to heat stress in humans as a result of global warming," said Nathan Gillett of the University of East Anglia in Britain and co-author of the study.

Co-author Katharine Willett from Yale University stated that the humidity during the study period increased over most of the globe, but the western U.S., South Africa and parts of Australia were drier.

Gillett ran several computer simulations which would predict what the humidity would be based on three different scenerios. The three scenerios were an atmosphere with no man-made greenhouse gases, one with just man-made greenhouse gases and finally one with a combination of natural conditions and man-made greenhouse gases. There was no match to the actual data with the first two scenerios while the third scenerio (the combination of natural conditions and man-made greenhouse gases) was nearly identical to the year-by-year increase in humidity.

Finally, according to Gillett, moisture in the air increases by about 6% with every degree celsius (1.8F) and based on IPCC projections, that would mean a 12-24% increase in humidity by 2100. Yuck!

This story from the BBC News has been out for a little over a week, but there has not been too much mention of it. Anyway, if you have not heard already, the giant Ayles Ice Island in the Canadian Arctic region broke in half a little over a month ago, as indicated by satellite imagery below. The ice island was originally the size of Manhattan as it broke away from the Ayles Ice Shelf in 2005.

All images courtesy of the Canadian Space Agency.

This first image shows the location of the Ayles Ice shelf

This image shows a closeup of the 2005 fracture location and the track of the ice island through September 2007.

These next two images show the ice island just as it is beginning to split (top image) and totally separated (bottom) in a matter of three days during early September 2007.

The below image from September 14th shows the two pieces moving south and farther away from each other.

The September 16th shot shows the two large ice islands getting closer to Amund Ringnes Island.

The September 23rd image shows one piece going into Hassel Sound and the other going into Massey Sound.

The latest image from September 30th shows the two large pieces of ice on opposite sides of Amund Ringnes island.

One piece of the island has been moving south at nearly 61 miles a week. According to Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, it is relatively unusual for an ice island to drift so far south so quickly, but he believes this happened this year due to the small extent of sea ice. This recent major split occurred much earlier than scientists expected and Dr. Copland believes it will break up even faster since it has moved farther south into slightly warmer temperatures. "I'd be surprised if it lasted more than a decade or so," said Copland, unlike ice islands which in the past might have lasted in the Arctic ocean for 50 years or more.

The accelerated thawing of the Arctic Basin, which by the way has a stockpile of natural resources, including oil and natural gas reserves could soon cause a rush of nations across the globe to advance their undersea borders and resource claims, states an article from the International Herald Tribune

It is estimated that discovered oil and natural gas reserves totaling 233 billion barrels of oil or its equivalent can be found in the Arctic Basin, with potential additional resources estimated at 166 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Right now, with the cost of a barrel of crude oil being so high, we are talking about a lot of $$$$ potential here.

The study, "The Future of the Arctic," found that natural gas accounted for 80 percent of all available reserves, and that 69 percent of it belonged to Russia.

According to David Parkinson, a consultant at Wood Mackenzie, the study focused on the continental shelf, within defined jurisdictions. Most of what the study found is exploitable. "The technology is there" he said. There is also speculation that additional reserves may exist farther out at sea.

Earlier this summer a titanium Russian Federation flag was planted on the floor of the Arctic Sea and some of Russia's Arctic neighbors saw this as an attempted land grab.
Russian denied this and said that it is just trying to prove that its continental shelf "stretches up to the North Pole"

Three other countries, Norway, Denmark and Iceland have also made claims, and if the Continental Shelf Commission agrees that a continuous continental shelf extends in the area then the three countries would have overlapping claims to sort out.

It looks to me that this could easily end up as one big political mess that may never really get solved.

The ozone hole over the southern hemisphere reached its annual peak on September 13th, according to NASA. The size of the hole was pretty average compared to the last 15 years, but very big when compared to the 1970's, when the hole did not yet exist.

From the NASA Earth Observatory News: The reason the ozone hole peaks in size during early Southern Hemisphere spring is that chemical reactions that create ozone-destroying chemicals like chlorine gas (two joined chlorine atoms) occur on the surface of droplets in polar stratospheric clouds, and these clouds form mostly during the dark, frigid polar winter. When sunlight returns to the Southern Hemisphere in spring, ultraviolet light splits the chlorine gas molecules into single chlorine atoms. Each single atom can catalyze the destruction of thousands of ozone molecules. As spring advances, wind patterns change. Air from lower latitudes mixes into the polar region, the chlorine gas disperses, and the ozone layer stabilizes until the next spring.

Even though the production of ozone-destroying CFC's has stopped, there is a lag in the recovery of the ozone, since atmospheric CFC's have a lifetime of 40-100 years, so full recovery is not expected till 2070, but that is far from certain, especially when things such as global warming may have to be factored in.

What impact could global warming have on the ozone hole? Well, it seems that I found two differing opinions on this. According to the NASA Earth Observatory story, warming over the South Pole could speed up the recovery. Now are they talking about warming in the stratosphere or troposphere? They are not specific. Assuming they are talking about the stratosphere means that the troposphere would be getting colder, which is opposite of global warming. I found a couple of other links which state the global warming will increase ozone depletion. Ozone depletion gets worse when the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is) gets colder. Global warming traps heat underneath in the troposphere, while at the same time less heat reaches the stratosphere, making it colder, and therefore more condusive to ozone destruction. This second argument makes more sense and is much clearer to the reader.

I know, some of you are probably saying, "Oh no, not another polar bear story!" Actually, this story, which was posted on Nature.com seems to provide the strongest evidence yet that there is a link between early sea ice melt and the increased rate of starvation and drownings of old and young polar bears.

Scientists from the United States and Canada studied 20 years of data from polar bears captured along the coast of Hudson Bay and determined that fewer of the youngest and oldest bears survived in years when the sea ice broke early.

"Survivorship has dropped in the cubs, subadults and very old animals and is directly related to the date of break-up," says Ian Stirling, a biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton, Alberta, and an author on the report.

Historically, ice has filled Hudson Bay 8 months each year, now the ice is clearing nearly 3 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago.

Here is the link to the short article. The 'Missing Cubs' section of the article outlines the study and the results.

One of my co-workers here at AccuWeather.com sent me this link. It is titled, "A complete list of things caused by global warming" and wow is this some list! The site provides all these links to stories that have related certain things to global warming. Some of the links are broken, but you get the idea.

Some examples.......invasion of cats, lawyer's income increased, gingerbread houses collapse, suicide and food poisoning.

Feel free to offer some of your favorites in the comment section.

Seasonal melting this year in the higher altitudes of the Greenland Ice Sheet rose 150% above the 19-year average, according to a news release from NASA. Melting also took place on 25-30 more days than the average.

The large image on the link shows the melt anomaly of Greenland for 2007. The anomaly is measured as the difference between the number of days on which melting occurred in 2007 compared to the average annual melting days over the last 19 years. The red colors indicate more melt days than normal, while the blue is obviously less than normal. The image was made using microwave-frequency data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program.

Marco Tedesco, a scientist at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology also calculated a melting index. The index is determined by multiplying the number of days that melting took place by the area where melting occurred. The melting insex in the lower altitude ice sheet areas of Greenland during 2007 was 30% higher than average. Taking into account the entire Greenland Ice Sheet, the melting index for 2007 was the 5th highest on record, following 2005, 2002,1998 and 2004.

A Purdue University led study determined that the number of days favorable for severe thunderstorms could more than double in some parts of the United States by the end of the century because of global warming.

The research team used climate models to examine future weather conditions favorable to the formation of severe thunderstorms, according to the ScienceDaily article.

"Areas close to the main sources of humidity, primarily the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, show the most significant increases in potential for storms," said Robert Trapp, the Purdue associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who led the research team.

"We know from the past that extremes in weather and individual severe storms can be devastating. This study makes a strong statement that a few degrees of global warming could make these severe events much more common than they are today," said Noah Diffenbaugh from Purdue's Climate Change Research Center.

Individual storms were not examined in this study because they are too small for the current climate models to analyze, and also a trigger is needed to initiate a storm, according to team member Harold Brooks from the Severe Storms Laboratory.

Research suggested global warming would lead to an increase in humid air that fuels severe thunderstorms, however, it also suggested global warming would reduce strong winds that contribute to the storms. "The result was a general increase in days more favorable to storm creation. It appears that the increase in warm, humid air near the surface outweighs the reduction in strong winds higher in the atmosphere," said Diffenbaugh.

The results of the study also showed a strong seasonal and regional variation in the effects of climate change, which should not be a surprise.

Before I get to the post, I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. I took over this blog back in January of 2007 and have truly enjoyed the experience. I have personally learned a great deal about climate change by researching many stories and studies, watching Katie's videos and the of course by reading your comments. I look forward to another year! Thank you!

Now on to some bad news........

I do not watch 60 minutes that much anymore, there is just too much other good stuff that is on Sunday evening. My parents used to watch it all the time, and with one TV that is what I watched as well. Anyway, the show just happened to still be on when I came into the living room and a story about western wildfires was just starting, so I stayed and watched.
The story focused on the recent increase in mega-fires across the forests of the western United States. Typical fires during the burn season are a common part of nature and are necessary in many cases. Forests and wildlife usually recover fairly quickly from these fires as most of the undergrowth is burned away while the large, older trees are able to survive. Unfortunately, fire ecologists have seen a marked increase in mega-fires across the West recently and are blaming global warming, since the warming has allowed logs, branches and tree needles to dry out faster and for a longer period of time. These mega-fires are huge and can "kill" a forest. The larger flames and higher heat from these fires can kill the large, old-growth trees and lead to sterile soil conditions, which prevent new growth after the fire.

"The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole western U.S., said Tom Swetnam, fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "So actually 78 days on average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15-20 years."

The strongest impact on me from the 60 Minutes story was the interview with Tom Boatner, the federal governments chief of fire operations, who has worked the fire lines for 30 years and has seen the change first hand. "We're seeing century-old forests that had never sustained these kinds of fires before, being razed to the ground," said Boatner.

The increase in mega-fires might not be all due to the warming. Forest fire management policy over the past 100 years has been to stop even small to moderate-size fires as fast as possible, which has resulted in a very large amount of forest undergrowth. The availability of this dry, undergrowth has added a lot more potential fuel than normal to these fires, increasing the chances of mega-fires.

Swetnam says that there is a reasonable chance that more than half of the region's forests could be claimed by fire within some decades to a century as we continue to get large-scale fires.

Older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice which is much more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007, according to a new study from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The study concluded the following......

--There was a nearly complete loss of the oldest, thickest sea ice.

--58% of perennial ice is only 2-3 years old and is thin. In the mid-1980's, that figure was 35%.

--Ice that was older than 7 years made up 21% of the multi-year Arctic Ice cover in 1988, that figure fell to only 5% in 2007.

Excerpts taken from SpaceRef.com

"This thinner, younger ice makes the Arctic much more susceptible to rapid melt," James Maslanik said. "Our concern is that if the Arctic continues to get kicked hard enough toward one physical state, it becomes increasingly difficult to reestablish the sea ice conditions of 20 or 30 years ago." Professor Maslanik is the lead author of the study.

The replacement of older, thicker Arctic ice by younger, thinner ice, combined with the effects of warming, unusual atmospheric circulation patterns and increased melting from solar radiation absorbed by open waters in 2007 all have contributed to the phenomenon, said Sheldon Drobot. "These conditions are setting the Arctic up for additional, significant melting because of the positive feedback loop that plays back on itself."

The research team used passive microwave, visible infrared radar and laser altimeter satellite data from NOAA, NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense along with buoy data to track and measure the sea ice going back to 1982.

The study appears in the Jan 10th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters. Here is the link to the abstract.

Surprise! A new NOAA study based on observations, instead of computer models, has found that warming global sea-surface temperatures is associated with a sustained, long-term increase in vertical wind shear in the main development region for Atlantic hurricanes, which may be reducing the number of hurricanes that landfall in the U.S.. In general, vertical wind shear hinders the development of tropical cyclones by removing thunderstorms from the center of circulation and disrupting the overall circulation of the storm in the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere.

"Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes," said Chunzai Wang, a physical oceanographer with NOAA. Observations from 1854-2006 show a warming of sea-surface temperature occurring almost everywhere over the global ocean, according to the study.

Where the global warming occurs is important for determining the vertical wind shear in the Atlantic huricane main development region between 10 and 20 degrees north latitude from west Africa to Central America. Warmer waters in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans increased vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region, while warming in the North Atlantic decreased vertical wind shear. Overall, the warming of the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans had a much greater impact than the North Atlantic.

What do you make of this study? You can't blame the computer models on this one.

UPDATE............

Dr. Wang responds to critics who said his study was based on poor data.

I had mentioned in my Thursday blog that I would be attending one of the 1400+ "Focus The Nation" teach-ins on climate change that were held across the country that day. The one I attended was held at Penn State University. There were several experts who spoke about climate change throughout the day and it was quite interesting. At least three of the speakers on the Penn State panel had a role in the writing of a particular chapter of the IPCC report. One of those authors stated that he was initially a strong skeptic, but af