 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:18 am |
|
New study reveals decline of marine phytoplankton over the past century
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/07/28/new.study.reveals.decline.marine.phytoplankton.over.past.century?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=statusnet&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eScienceNews%2Fpopular+%28e!+Science+News+-+Popular%29
Published: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 12:29 in Earth & Climate A new article published in the 29 July issue of the international journal Nature reveals for the first time that microscopic marine algae known as "phytoplankton" have been declining globally over the 20th century. Phytoplankton forms the basis of the marine food chain and sustains diverse assemblages of species ranging from tiny zooplankton to large marine mammals, seabirds, and fish. Says lead author Daniel Boyce, "Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run.
A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans." Using an unprecedented collection of historical and recent oceanographic data, a team from Canada's Dalhousie University documented phytoplankton declines of about 1% of the global average per year. This trend is particularly well documented in the Northern Hemisphere and after 1950, and would translate into a decline of approximately 40% since 1950. The scientists found that long-term phytoplankton declines were negatively correlated with rising sea surface temperatures and changing oceanographic conditions.
The goal of the three-year analysis was to resolve one of the most pressing issues in oceanography, namely to answer the seemingly simple question of whether the ocean is becoming more (or less) „green' with algae. Previous analyses had been limited to more recent satellite data (consistently available since 1997) and have yielded variable results.
To extend the record into the past, the authors analysed a unique compilation of historical measurements of ocean transparency going back to the very beginning of quantitative oceanography in the late 1800s, and combined these with additional samples of phytoplankton pigment („chlorophyll') from ocean-going research vessels. The end result was a database of just under half a million observations which enabled the scientists to estimate phytoplankton trends over the entire globe going back to the year 1899.
The scientists report that most phytoplankton declines occurred in polar and tropical regions and in the open oceans where most phytoplankton production occurs. Rising sea surface temperatures were negatively correlated with phytoplankton growth over most of the globe, especially close to the equator. Phytoplankton need both sunlight and nutrients to grow; warm oceans are strongly stratified, which limits the amount of nutrients that are delivered from deeper waters to the surface ocean.
Rising temperatures may contribute to making the tropical oceans even more stratified, leading to increasing nutrient limitation and phytoplankton declines. The scientists also found that large-scale climate fluctuations, such as the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), affect phytoplankton on a year-to-year basis, by changing short-term oceanographic conditions.
The findings contribute to a growing body of scientific evidence indicating that global warming is altering the fundamentals of marine ecosystems. Says co-author Marlon Lewis, "Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are another important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by the effects of fishing and pollution. Better observational tools and scientific understanding are needed to enable accurate forecasts of the future health of the ocean." Explains co-author Boris Worm, "Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2, and ultimately support all of our fisheries. An ocean with less phytoplankton will function differently, and this has to be accounted for in our management efforts."
Last edited on Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:25 am by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:18 am |
|
| http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/07/28/new.study.reveals.decline.marine.phytoplankton.over.past.century?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=statusnet&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eScienceNews%2Fpopular+%28e!+Science+News+-+Popular%29
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:18 am |
|
| http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/07/28/new.study.reveals.decline.marine.phytoplankton.over.past.century?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=statusnet&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eScienceNews%2Fpopular+%28e!+Science+News+-+Popular%29
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 5th, 2010 09:09 pm |
|
Oxygen From Ocean Photosynthesis Critical to Carbon-Oxygen Balance
Sydney: here are the figures on free oxygen that come from one of the principal sources (Walker 1980) which I believe indicates that oceanic photosynthesis contributes approximately 45 percent of the total free oxygen to the oxygen cycle (largely from algae).
Keep in mind that the flows of free oxygen may not be all that matters here. One theory out there suggests that phosphorus (P) in the ocean helps regulate the amount of atmospheric oxygen.
Photosynthesizers, the source of most of the oceanic oxygen, are limited by the available supply of phosphorus and must compete for this with oceanic bacteria which are ubiquitous. Of course, acidification and temperature rise also affect bacteria.
Walker, J. C. G. 1980. The Oxygen Cycle in The Natural Environment and the Biogeochemical Cycles. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Another link to Walker's writing on the subject that is quite interesting: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1309690
Attached Image (viewed 32 times):
 Last edited on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 09:37 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21st, 2010 02:33 pm |
|
Detailed Statistical Analysis Supports Inference of Warming: Parcels Out Effects of Ocean Circulation
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change
Kyle L. Swansona,1, George Sugiharab and Anastasios A. Tsonisa http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full#ack-1
Abstract
Global mean temperature at the Earth's surface responds both to externally imposed forcings, such as those arising from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, as well as to natural modes of variability internal to the climate system. Variability associated with these latter processes, generally referred to as natural long-term climate variability, arises primarily from changes in oceanic circulation...Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century.
Fig. 3. Observed GISS 21-year running mean global mean surface temperature (heavy solid), along with that temperature cleaned of the internal signal, which is the mean over the eight active models of Fig. 1A (dashed). The cleaned global mean temperature warms monotonically, and closely resembles a quadratic fit to the observed 20th century global mean temperature (thin solid). The standard deviation of the cleaned temperature from the quadratic fit is 0.03 °C compared with 0.06 °C for the observed.
This result is another link in a growing chain of evidence that internal climate variability played leading order role in the trajectory of 20th century global mean surface temperature.
Freely evolving general circulation model trajectories have been shown to have large global mean surface temperature excursions similar to that observed in the early 20th century (8). These excursions appear to be consistent with fluctuations in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC), which significantly impacts the northern hemisphere temperature (10, 11, 23). The apparent internal variability of the THC has been shown to have a different relation of the SST to subsurface ocean temperatures from that expected for forced variability in the North Atlantic (24), consistent with the THC at least playing a partial role in the internal variability identified here.
Last edited on Wed Apr 21st, 2010 02:51 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 21st, 2010 02:00 pm |
|
 Global Temperature Record and Projections
important curves that support climate change hypothesis
see the following sources for information below:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm
ABRUPT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AND THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD
Matthew J. Menne *
NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
 http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
Comparison of IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 2001 and Assessment Report (AR4) 2007
The following figure shows Figure 9.14 from the TAR. It shows temperature projections to 2100: “results are relative to 1990 and shown for 1990 to 2100. future changes for the six illustrative SRES scenarios using a simple climate model tuned to seven AOGCMs. Also for comparison, following the same method, results are shown for IS92a. The dark blue shading represents the envelope of the full set of thirty-five SRES scenarios using the simple model ensemble mean results. The light blue envelope is based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings. The bars show the range of simple model results in 2100 for the seven AOGCM model tunings.”
The following figure shows Figure SPM-5 from the AR4. It shows temperature projections to 2100: “Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980-99) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the plus/minus one standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The gray bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the gray bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models and observational constraints.”
Attached Image (viewed 122 times):
 Last edited on Wed Apr 21st, 2010 02:31 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 18th, 2010 12:29 pm |
|
Meteorologist Issues Complete Guide to Climate Change
Highlights Key Indicators Including Storm Intensity
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/14/the-complete-guide-to-modern-day-climate-change/
Figure 7.24: IGBP Climate-Change Index
Climate Change and Hurricanes:
A recent paper published by some of the top hurricane researchers in the field (Knutson, et al. 2010) concludes: …future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html
According to a review of the most recent literature, Vechi, Swanson, and Soden (2008) conclude that predicting the future of hurricane activity is at a crossroads. Vechi et al. compared the observed relation of the power dissipation index (PDI) vs. sea-surface temperatures (SST) in the main development region of Atlantic hurricanes. (PDI is the cube of the instantaneous tropical cyclone wind speed integrated over the life of all storms in a given season; more intense and frequent basinwide hurricane activity lead to higher PDI values.)
There are two very different futures depending on whether absolute SST or relative SST controls PDI.
Figure 7.22 (ibid) shows PDI anomalies based on absolute SST.
Figure 7.22: PDI anomalies based on absolute SST
By 2100, the lower end of the model projections shows a PDI comparable to that of 2005, when four major hurricanes (sustained winds of over 100 knots) struck the continental United States, causing more than $100 billion in damage. The upper end of the projections exceeds 2005 levels by more than a factor of two. Combined with rising sea levels, coastal communities face a bleak future if absolute SST determines hurricane activity and strength.
Last edited on Sun Apr 18th, 2010 12:53 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 15th, 2010 07:07 pm |
|
British review panel clears 'Climategate' research unit
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011608537_climategate15.html?syndication=rss
Researchers accused of manipulating or hiding data in last year's "Climategate" affair were guilty of sloppy record-keeping but not bad science, an independent panel in Britain concluded Wednesday in the second of three investigations of the scandal.
By Henry Chu
Los Angeles Times
LONDON — Researchers accused of manipulating or hiding data in last year's "Climategate" affair were guilty of sloppy record-keeping but not bad science, an independent panel in Britain concluded Wednesday in the second of three investigations of the scandal.
Accusations that the researchers deliberately misrepresented data to promote the idea of human-caused climate change rocked the scientific community in November, as world leaders were preparing for an international environmental summit.
The accusations, by skeptics of climate change, were based on e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia in eastern England, including one in which a scientist wrote of using a "trick" to mask an apparent decline in recent global temperatures. But a panel of experts charged with examining the underlying science said it "saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work" by the university's Climatic Research Unit. The seven-member panel, commissioned by the university and chosen in consultation with the prestigious scientific organization the Royal Society, interviewed staff and analyzed 11 peer-reviewed articles published between 1986 and 2008.
Instead, "we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers" who did not store their data and working notes as well as they could have but whose science was conducted "with integrity," the committee said in the report. The review — which follows a British parliamentary review that defended the institution's research but faulted its tendency to withhold information — did nothing to bridge the divide between many climate researchers and their critics.
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, called it a "superficial investigation."
"They don't even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests," said Ebell, whose think tank accepts funding from energy interests. The panel did recommend that the researchers work more closely with trained statisticians to strengthen the soundness of their conclusions. But even if such cooperation had been in place before, the researchers would probably not have arrived at significantly different results, the panel said.
"The fact is we found them absolutely squeaky clean," the head of the panel, Ron Oxburgh, a geologist and former government adviser, told the BBC.
The controversy broke open a few weeks before the climate-change summit in Copenhagen attended by President Obama and other international figures. Analysts say Climategate may have contributed to a disappointing outcome of the summit by neutralizing some of the urgency of the need to tackle human-caused climate change.
The affair forced one researcher, Phil Jones, the scientist who wrote of using a "trick" in a presentation on global temperatures, to step down as head of the Climatic Research Unit. 
Two weeks ago, a parliamentary committee cleared Jones of any intention to deceive but chastised the university for obstructing public requests for information, saying scientific data ought to be freely available and transparent.
Oxburg, a former academic who is the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, is involved with the wind-energy company Falck Renewables. The other members were Huw Davies at ETH Zurich; Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Lisa Graumlich at the University of Arizona; David Hand at Imperial College London; and Herbert Huppert and Michael Kelly at the University of Cambridge.
A third review, headed by Muir Russell, a former British civil servant, is expected to report soon on accusations of malpractice.
Last edited on Thu Apr 15th, 2010 07:12 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 30th, 2010 05:51 pm |
|
Dear Fergie, 
Global climate disruption threatens life as we know it -- for endangered species like the mighty polar bear and majestic sea turtles, and for all of us. But we can do something about it.
The Center for Biological Diversity and 350.org took an historic step in the desperate fight against climate catastrophe in December 2009 when we legally petitioned the EPA to establish a national pollution cap for greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Now, we need you to stand strong with us. Join more than 100 groups and individuals such as preeminent climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, award-winning author Barbara Kingsolver, music star Bonnie Raitt, and well-known actor and environmental activist Ed Begley, Jr., in signing the People's Petition to Cap Carbon Dioxide Pollution at 350 Parts Per Million.
With climate talks at Copenhagen failing to produce a binding, science-based agreement, Senate climate legislation negotiations producing weak or stalled bills, and climate change happening faster than many predictions, now -- more than ever -- we need to use the tools we have to put a firm cap on CO2 pollution. We need to support the EPA in doing its job: enforcing the Clean Air Act to avert catastrophic runaway global warming and protect the air we breathe today and for generations to come.
Help us get 500,000 people to sign the 'People's Petition' by clicking below to take action and then forwarding this email to your contact list. We can't do this without you.Last edited on Tue Mar 30th, 2010 05:51 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17th, 2010 05:50 pm |
|
Methane bubbles in Arctic Seas stir warming fears
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233ZU20100304
edited excerpts from article by: Alister Doyle 5 March 2010
According to researchers from the U Alaska Fairbanks, large amounts of a powerful greenhouse gas are bubbling up from a long-frozen seabed north of Siberia, raising fears of far bigger leaks that could stoke global warming. It was unclear, however, if the Arctic emissions of methane gas were new or had been going on unnoticed for centuries -- since before the Industrial Revolution.
The study said about 8 million tonnes of methane a year, equivalent to the annual total previously estimated from all of the world's oceans, were seeping from vast stores long trapped under permafrost below the seabed north of Russia.
"Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap," Natalia Shakhova, a co-leader of the research team.
The experts measured levels of methane, a gas that can be released by rotting vegetation, in water and air at 5,000 sites on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf from 2003-08. In some places, methane was bubbling up from the seabed.
Previously, the sea floor had been considered an impermeable barrier sealing methane, Shakhova said. Current methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.
GLOBAL WARMING
"No one can answer this question," she said of whether the venting was caused by global warming or by natural factors. But a projected rise in temperatures could quicken the thaw.
"It's good that these emissions are documented. But you cannot say they're increasing," Martin Heimann, an expert at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Germany who wrote a separate article on methane in Science, told Reuters.
"These leaks could have been occurring all the time" since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, he said. He wrote that the release of 8 million tonnes of methane a year was "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tonnes.
Shakhova's study said there was an "urgent need" to monitor the region for possible future changes since permafrost traps vast amounts of methane, the second most common greenhouse gas from human activities after carbon dioxide.
Monitoring could resolve if the venting was "a steadily ongoing phenomenon or signals the start of a more massive release period," according to the scientists, based at U.S., Russian and Swedish research institutions.
The release of just a "small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming," they wrote.
The shelf has sometimes been above sea level during the earth's history. When submerged, temperatures rise by 12-17 degrees Celsius (22-31 F) since water is warmer than air. Over thousands of years, that may thaw submerged permafrost.
About 60 percent of methane now comes from human activities such as landfills, cattle rearing or rice paddies. Natural sources such as wetlands make up the rest, along with poorly understood sources such as the oceans, wildfires or termites.
Most studies about methane focus on permafrost on land. But the shelf below the Laptev, East Siberian and Russian part of the Chuckchi sea is three times the size of Siberia's wetlands.
Attached Image (viewed 161 times):
 Last edited on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 06:42 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17th, 2010 08:16 am |
|
More Scientists Agree: Climate Change Underestimated; Sea-Level Rise Higher
excerpts http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7890988.stm
Sun Dec 20, 2:47 pm ET
Last month a team of US and Chinese climate scientists concluded that global warming had been underestimated. Now, several more eminent climate scientists have reached the same conclusion. These include Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change. According to Field, future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted. Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change. He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.
links:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo724.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/climatewarmingscience
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/models-underestimated-climate-change.html
Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. "We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy."
Another team from six institutions also reports that sea level, may be responding more quickly to rising carbon emissions than previously predicted (http://www.sciencealert.com.au/models-underestimated-climate-change.html)
In a review published in the journal Science on February 3, the authors found that carbon dioxide concentration followed the modeled scenarios almost exactly, that global-mean surface temperatures were in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC, and that observed sea level has been rising faster than the models had projected and closely followed the IPCC Third Assessment Report upper limit of an 88 cm rise between 1990 and 2100.
The sea level observations come from both coastal and island tide gauges and data provided by satellites. Sea levels have risen largely due to warming of the ocean and the consequent thermal expansion and melting of non-polar glaciers and ice caps and the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
One of the authors of the review, Dr John Church of the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC and CSIRO, noted that any (or all) of the modeled contributions could be underestimated but that there is most uncertainty about the contribution made by ice-sheet melts.
Attached Image (viewed 177 times):
 Last edited on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 06:18 am by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17th, 2010 08:11 am |
|
Met Office UK Reaffirms—Emphatically--Evidence of Global Warming and Anthropogenic Causes
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html
Excerpts: 10 December 2009
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here.
As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.
Animated Global Maps display World-wide:
Effects http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/projections/
Last edited on Tue Feb 23rd, 2010 06:19 am by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 08:37 pm |
|
Scientists Discover Reduced Water Vapor in Stratosphere:
May Account for Recent Temperature Moderation
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55762/title/Water_vapor_slowed_recent_global__warming_trend
By Sid Perkins
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
A sudden and unexplained drop in the amount of water vapor present high in the atmosphere almost a decade ago has substantially slowed the rate of warming at Earth’s surface in recent years, scientists say.
In late 2000 and early 2001, concentrations of water vapor in a narrow slice of the lower stratosphere dropped by 0.5 parts per million, or about 10 percent, and have remained relatively stable since then. Because the decline was noted by several types of instruments, including some on satellites and others lofted on balloons, the sharp decrease is presumed to be real, says Karen Rosenlof, a meteorologist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.
And because water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, the decline has slowed the increase of global temperatures, Rosenlof, Susan Solomon, also of NOAA in Boulder, and their colleagues report online January 28 and in an upcoming Science.
“This is such a sudden decrease, we can’t explain what’s behind it,” Rosenlof says. One large source of water vapor in the stratosphere is the oxidation of methane, she notes. But the decline in concentration of that gas detected by the researchers seems to be limited to a layer 2 kilometers thick in the lower stratosphere, while methane is found throughout the stratosphere. And even though scientists have discerned a leveling off in atmospheric methane in recent years, that trend doesn’t seem to be directly linked to the drop in the concentrations of stratospheric water vapor, she says.
Regardless of the cause of the decline, the team’s modeling suggests that the decrease in water vapor concentrations in the lower stratosphere has slowed down average global warming. The rate of increase in the average global surface temperature from 2000 to 2009 was about 25 percent lower than it otherwise would have been, the researchers report. The team’s analyses using a climate model suggest that average global surface temperatures rose only 0.1 degrees Celsius during that period, rather than the 0.14 degree increase expected because of increases in other greenhouse gases.
The researchers speculate that the amount of water vapor gradually rising into the stratosphere at tropical latitudes has decreased, possibly due to a shift in global patterns of sea-surface temperatures that influence rates of evaporation and water vapor movement.
The new findings “are a nice demonstration of the sensitivity of the climate to water vapor concentrations in the lower stratosphere,” says Andrew Gettelman, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.
Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station says he thinks the team has identified a new source of short-term variability in climate, one different from long-term drivers such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases. And even though the effect seems to be substantial, the decrease in water vapor may be temporary.
What’s more, Dessler says, humans can’t depend on a continued decline in water vapor in the lower stratosphere to slow surface warming further in the long term. “Water vapor is scarce in the lower stratosphere already, and you can’t drop below zero,” he notes. “This is not going to save our bacon.”
Last edited on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 08:47 pm by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 13th, 2010 07:40 am |
|
Dear Fergie,
Sample letter follows to oppose Murkowski amendment. to cripple the Clean Air Act and reversing the EPA's critical finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health.
Subject: Oppose Murkowski Amendment to Reverse EPA's Endangerment Finding
Dear Senator,
Please vote no on Senator Murkowski's amendment to reverse the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health under the Clean Air Act, and please oppose any moves to roll back the Clean Air Act.
In response to the best available science and a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA is finally enforcing one of our nation's most successful environmental laws -- the Clean Air Act -- in the urgent fight against global warming. The Clean Air Act works, and now, more than ever, we need every available tool to curb global warming.
The Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe for four decades and is our strongest existing law for reducing greenhouse pollution. It is directly responsible for saving lives, improving health, and decreasing hospitalizations and lost school and work days. According to the EPA, in 2010, the Clean Air Act will save 23,000 lives and prevent 1.7 million asthma attacks, 4.1 million lost work days, and more than 68,000 hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.
The Clean Air Act saves money and protects our economy. In its first two decades alone, the Act provided pollution reduction benefits 42 times greater than the estimated costs of regulation, including decreased healthcare costs and reduced lost work time worth $22.2 trillion. If implemented by the EPA as required by existing law, the Clean Air Act will produce similar benefits while reducing greenhouse pollutants.
Please oppose Senator Murkowski's amendment to reverse the EPA's endangerment finding and any attempts to roll back the Clean Air Act's ability to curb greenhouse gas pollution.
Last edited on Wed Jan 13th, 2010 07:43 am by sydneyst
|
sydneyst
Administrator
| Joined: | Mon Mar 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Seattle, USA |
| Posts: | 679 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 13th, 2010 07:34 am |
|
Dear Fergie,
After years of pressure, the EPA is finally moving to use the Clean Air Act to curb global warming -- but Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is planning to upend the EPA's implementation plans and weaken one of our most successful environmental laws.
Next week, Murkowski is set to introduce an amendment in the Senate that would cripple the Clean Air Act by reversing the EPA's critical finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health. The finding, years in the making and the result of a Supreme Court decision, is the first step in actually implementing the Act to curb greenhouse pollution.
With climate legislation weak and stalled in the Senate, and the Copenhagen climate talks' failure to produce a binding, science-based agreement, the Clean Air Act is our best bet for cutting carbon in our atmosphere to 350 parts per million. Swift action, now, is necessary to avoid a global meltdown -- we can't let Murkowski eviscerate our best existing tool for reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
Please take one minute today to tell the Senate we need the Clean Air Act to curb global warming, and to oppose all moves like Murkowski's to gut the Act.
Last edited on Wed Jan 13th, 2010 07:35 am by sydneyst
|
Current time is 02:40 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
