How Extreme Weather affects by global warming (Climate change)

How Extreme Weather affects by global warming (Climate change) ?

There is currently a massive storm churning over the Atlantic that spans the entire ocean basin, stretching all the way from Canada to Europe, and from Greenland to the Caribbean.

It's the same weather system that brought a massive spring blizzard to much of the United States and Canada earlier this week (on Tuesday (March 26), 44 of 50 states had some snow on the ground), and which has now ballooned in size, according to Jason Samenow, chief meteorologist with the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang.

Robert Oszajca, lead forecaster for the National Weather Service's Ocean Prediction Center, explained that the storm got this big by merging with several low-pressure systems that were hanging out over the Atlantic Ocean. The merging weather systems gave it more power, which was accentuated by a gradient between warm moisture from the southeast, delivered by the Gulf Stream, and frigid air from the north. This intensified the storm, causing it to spin, elongate and grow in size, Oszajca told OurAmazingPlanet.

Normally, the system would have drifted into Europe several days ago. However, a high-pressure system over Greenland blocked the low-pressure system's advance, which allowed it to strengthen further, fed by cold air from the north. This created winds (which move from high pressure to low pressure) up to 75 mph (120 km/h), equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane, Oszajca said. 

"We're impressed with the size of this storm," he said. Nevertheless, storms this big form about once or twice every winter.

The storm, which looks like a large comma whose tail stretches into the Caribbean, ranges from Eastern Canada all the way to Spain and north to Greenland. It has created waves up to 42 feet (13 meters) high, Oszajca said.

The storm has already begun to weaken, however, as the high-pressure "blocking" system to the north has eased. Oszajca said the central low-pressure system that has powered the storm will soon break up into several separate centers, and the storm will fragment before hitting Portugal in about four days. The storm isn't expected to be very intense by the time it reaches Europe.

Resource: weather.yahoo.com

Read more...

Pacific Islands On Equator May Become Refuge for Corals in a Warming Climate Due to Changes in Ocean Currents

Scientists have predicted that ocean temperatures will rise in the equatorial Pacific by the end of the century, wreaking havoc on coral reef ecosystems. But a new study shows that climate change could cause ocean currents to operate in a surprising way and mitigate the warming near a handful of islands right on the equator. As a result these Pacific islands may become isolated refuges for corals and fish.

Here's how it would happen, according to the study by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientists Kristopher Karnauskas and Anne Cohen, published April 29 in the journal Nature Climate Change.
At the equator, trade winds push a surface current from east to west. About 100 to 200 meters below, a swift countercurrent develops, flowing in the opposite direction. This, the Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC), is cooler and rich in nutrients. When it hits an island, like a rock in a river, water is deflected upward on the island's western flank and around the islands. This well-known upwelling process brings cooler water and nutrients to the sunlit surface, creating localized areas where tiny marine plants and corals flourish.
On color-enhanced satellite maps showing measurements of global ocean chlorophyll levels, these productive patches of ocean stand out as bright green or red spots, for example around the Galapagos Islands in the eastern Pacific.
But as you look west, chlorophyll levels fade like a comet tail, giving scientists little reason to look closely at scattered low-lying coral atolls farther west. The islands are easy to overlook because they are tiny, remote, and lie at the far left edge of standard global satellite maps that place continents in the center.
Karnauskas, a climate scientist, was working with WHOI coral scientist Anne Cohen to explore how climate change would affect central equatorial Pacific reefs.
When he changed the map view on his screen in order to see the entire tropical Pacific at once, he saw that chlorophyll concentrations jumped up again exactly at the Gilbert Islands on the equator. Satellite maps also showed cooler sea surface temperatures on the west sides of these islands, part of the nation of Kiribati.
"I've been studying the tropical Pacific Ocean for most of my career, and I had never noticed that," he said. "It jumped out at me immediately, and I thought, 'there's probably a story there.'"
So Karnauskas and Cohen began to investigate how the EUC would affect the equatorial islands' reef ecosystems, starting with global climate models that simulate impacts in a warming world.
Global-scale climate models predict that ocean temperatures will rise nearly 3^oC (5.4^oF) in the central tropical Pacific. Warmer waters often cause corals to bleach, a process in which they lose the tiny symbiotic algae that life in them and provide them with vital nutrition. Bleaching has been a major cause of coral mortality and loss of coral reef area during the last 30 years.
But even the best global models, with their planet-scale views and lower resolution, cannot predict conditions in areas as small as small islands, Karnauskas said.
So they combined global models with a fine-scale regional model to focus on much smaller areas around minuscule islands scattered along the equator. To accommodate the trillions of calculations needed for such small-area resolution, they used the new high-performance computer cluster at WHOI called "Scylla."
"Global models predict significant temperature increase in the central tropical Pacific over the next few decades, but in truth conditions can be highly variable across and around a coral reef island," Cohen said. "To predict what the coral reef will experience under global climate change, we have to use high-resolution models, not global models.
Their model predicts that as air temperatures rise and equatorial trade winds weaken, the Pacific surface current will also weaken by 15 percent by the end of the century. The then-weaker surface current will impose less friction and drag on the EUC, so this deeper current will strengthen by 14 percent.
"Our model suggests that the amount of upwelling will actually increase by about 50 percent around these islands and reduce the rate of warming waters around them by about 0.7^oC (1.25^oF) per century," Karnauskas said.
A handful of coral atolls on the equator, some as small as 4 square kilometers (1.54 square miles) in area, may not seem like much. But Karnauskas's and Cohen's results say waters on the western sides of the islands will warm more slowly than at islands 2 degrees (or 138 miles) north and south of the equator that are not in the way of the EUC. That gives the Gilbert Islands a significant advantage over neighboring reef systems, they said.
"While the mitigating effect of a strengthened Equatorial Undercurrent will not spare the corals the perhaps-inevitable warming expected for this region, the warming rate will be slower around these equatorial islands, which may allow corals and their symbiotic algae a better chance to adapt and survive," Karnauskas said. If the model holds true, then even if neighboring reefs are hard hit, equatorial island coral reefs may well survive to produce larvae of corals and other reef species. Like a seed bank for the future, they might be a source of new corals and other species that could re-colonize damaged reefs.
"The globe is warming, but there are things going on underfoot that will slow that warming for certain parts of certain coral reef islands," said Cohen.
"These little islands in the middle of the ocean can counteract global trends and have a big impact on their own future, which I think is a beautiful concept," Karnauskas said.
"The finding that there may be refuges in the tropics where local circulation features buffer the trend of rising sea surface temperature has important implications for the survival of coral reef systems," said David Garrison, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research.

Source : Show Full Story

Read more...

Climate Models

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase during the next century unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease substantially from present levels. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007). The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain.
The amount and speed of future climate change will ultimately depend on:
Whether greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations increase, stay the same or decrease.
How strongly features of the climate (e.g. temperature, precipitation and sea level) respond to changes in greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations.
How much the climate varies as a result of natural influences (e.g. from volcanic activity and changes in the sun’s intensity) and its internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans).

Climate Models

Virtually all published estimates of how the climate could change in the future are produced by computer models of the Earth’s climate system. These models are known as general circulation models (GCMs). According to the IPCC (2007):
“[C]onfidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”
It is important to recognize that projections of climate change in specific areas are not forecasts comparable to tomorrow’s weather forecast. Rather, they are hypothetical examples of how the climate might change and usually contain a range of possibilities as opposed to one specific high likelihood outcome.

Full story read on : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html

Read more...

ICE AGE

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.
Here's how it works.
If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada or Siberia. Why?
It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.
The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.
As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners).
This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland.
The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the level of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a strong surface current of warm, fresher water from the Pacific to replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water slides up through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off the coast of Europe. By the time it arrives near Greenland, it's cooled off and evaporated enough water to become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor, providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing to the Pacific.
These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then grows salty and cools and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river - are known as the Great Conveyor Belt.
Amazingly, the Great Conveyor Belt is only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern coast of North America.
Much of this science was unknown as recently as twenty years ago. Then an international group of scientists went to Greenland and used newly developed drilling and sensing equipment to drill into some of the world's most ancient accessible glaciers. Their instruments were so sensitive that when they analyzed the ice core samples they brought up, they were able to look at individual years of snow. The results were shocking.
Prior to the last decades, it was thought that the periods between glaciations and warmer times in North America, Europe, and North Asia were gradual. We knew from the fossil record that the Great Ice Age period began a few million years ago, and during those years there were times where for hundreds or thousands of years North America, Europe, and Siberia were covered with thick sheets of ice year-round. In between these icy times, there were periods when the glaciers thawed, bare land was exposed, forests grew, and land animals (including early humans) moved into these northern regions.
Most scientists figured the transition time from icy to warm was gradual, lasting dozens to hundreds of years, and nobody was sure exactly what had caused it. (Variations in solar radiation were suspected, as were volcanic activity, along with early theories about the Great Conveyor Belt, which, until recently, was a poorly understood phenomenon.)
Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years. Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a rapidity that was startling.
It turns out that the ice age versus temperate weather patterns weren't part of a smooth and linear process, like a dimmer slider for an overhead light bulb. They are part of a delicately balanced teeter-totter, which can exist in one state or the other, but transits through the middle stage almost overnight. They more resemble a light switch, which is off as you gradually and slowly lift it, until it hits a mid-point threshold or "breakover point" where suddenly the state is flipped from off to on and the light comes on.
It appears that small (less that .1 percent) variations in solar energy happen in roughly 1500-year cycles. This cycle, for example, is what brought us the "Little Ice Age" that started around the year 1400 and dramatically cooled North America and Europe (we're now in the warming phase, recovering from that). When the ice in the Arctic Ocean is frozen solid and locked up, and the glaciers on Greenland are relatively stable, this variation warms and cools the Earth in a very small way, but doesn't affect the operation of the Great Conveyor Belt that brings moderating warm water into the North Atlantic.
In millennia past, however, before the Arctic totally froze and locked up, and before some critical threshold amount of fresh water was locked up in the Greenland and other glaciers, these 1500-year variations in solar energy didn't just slightly warm up or cool down the weather for the landmasses bracketing the North Atlantic. They flipped on and off periods of total glaciation and periods of temperate weather.
And these changes came suddenly.
For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.
And then a particularly hard winter would hit.
The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than Homo sapiens.)
What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms. .
If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.
And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."
Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.
And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.
What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global warming, it will happen sooner rather than later.

by Thom Hartmann

Resource :http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

Read more...

Increased Tropical Forest Growth Could Release Carbon from the Soil

A new study shows that as climate change enhances tree growth in tropical forests, the resulting increase in litterfall could stimulate soil micro-organisms leading to a release of stored soil carbon.

The research was led by scientists from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the University of Cambridge, UK. The results are published online in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The researchers used results from a six-year experiment in a rainforest at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, Central America, to study how increases in litterfall -- dead plant material such as leaves, bark and twigs which fall to the ground -- might affect carbon storage in the soil. Their results show that extra litterfall triggers an effect called 'priming' where fresh carbon from plant litter provides much-needed energy to micro-organisms, which then stimulates the decomposition of carbon stored in the soil.

Lead author Dr Emma Sayer from the UK's Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, "Most estimates of the carbon sequestration capacity of tropical forests are based on measurements of tree growth. Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels."

The study concludes that a large proportion of the carbon sequestered by greater tree growth in tropical forests could be lost from the soil. The researchers estimate that a 30% increase in litterfall could release about 0.6 tonnes of carbon per hectare from lowland tropical forest soils each year. This amount of carbon is greater than estimates of the climate-induced increase in forest biomass carbon in Amazonia over recent decades. Given the vast land surface area covered by tropical forests and the large amount of carbon stored in the soil, this could affect the global carbon balance.

Tropical forests play an essential role in regulating the global carbon balance. Human activities have caused carbon dioxide levels to rise but it was thought that trees would respond to this by increasing their growth and taking up larger amounts of carbon. However, enhanced tree growth leads to more dead plant matter, especially leaf litter, returning to the forest floor and it is unclear what effect this has on the carbon cycle.

Dr Sayer added, "Soils are thought to be a long-term store for carbon but we have shown that these stores could be diminished if elevated carbon dioxide levels and nitrogen deposition boost plant growth."

Co-author Dr Edmund Tanner, from the University of Cambridge, said, "This priming effect essentially means that older, relatively stable soil carbon is being replaced by fresh carbon from dead plant matter, which is easily decomposed. We still don't know what consequences this will have for carbon cycling in the long term."
Read full story : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110814141445.htm

Read more...

man-caused global warming a hoax

Plant scientist, I am concerned that Idaho and most states are planning to limit and reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is being done to supposedly reduce global warming. The states are adopting the 1997 Kyoto Climate Treaty which the U.S. Senate rejected 95-0 because it would destroy our economy while exempting developing nations like China which do not control pollution.

CO2 is not a pollutant and is not causing global warming. CO2 is necessary for life on the planet, as plants utilize CO2 to produce the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat! Global warming now and cooling of the 40’s to mid-seventies is caused by solar activity. We have an active sun now! The earth has been warming for 300 years with most of the increase prior to increased CO2 levels.

Also, 279 research project reports have shown that increasing CO2 increases crop production. Higher levels of CO2 is creating a lush environment for plants and animals and will improve the health (more oxygen), longevity and prosperity of all people.

Over 20,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition opposing man-caused global warming and the benefits of increased CO2 levels, but the mass media totally ignore them. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, stated that man-caused global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

The biased United Nation’s panel and Al Gore are promoting a lie to scare us into a U.N. global government. The bottom line is that we need to produce more energy, not less. We have a 300 year U.S. supply of crude oil and unlimited nuclear power. There is no scientific reason to limit CO2 production because it is not causing global warming

Read more...

Industrial pollution and global climate change

Ignorance is bliss, or so the saying goes; but what if that ignorance came with the price of destroying entire ecosystems? Although we've heard the phrase global warming in just about every news broadcast for the past decade, we still seem to be at a loss for what will happen if the delicate balance that gives us our temperate climates becomes off kilter.
A giant storm wouldn't form just out of the blue, flood part of the Earth, freeze a greater portion, sending lightning and wind storms that wipe out entire cities, and leave millions dead in just a matter of a few days like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow would it? We could survive another Ice Age that lasts hundreds, maybe even thousands of years with today's technology, couldn't we?
There is sufficient information to say that our planet is getting warmer. In the past 100 years, the Earth's temperature has risen around 1 Fahrenheit, which doesn't seem like much, but it truly has a larger impact than imagined. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is projecting a 3-10 rise in temperature by the year 2100. (National Geographic, 2008)
This temperature increase can dry up rivers and other water sources. In a severe drought condition, it is thought that an estimated 35% (around 1 million) of the Earth's species could disappear by the year 2050; some scientists say that that estimate is optimistic, at best. (Goodstein, February 2006) Glacier National Park in Montana has 27 glaciers; there were 150 in 1910. (National Geographic, 2008)
Science can only predict what is to come; however, the predictions scientists are forming come from the current trends they are observing. Most believe that global warming will lead to large-scale famine and drought. Rising temperatures will cause glaciers resting on top of mountains to melt completely. Many villages rely on the melting snow to fill their streams that water their crops and livestock. (Goodstein, February 2006)
Deserts will grow, destroying what was once farm land. A mini Ice Age could settle over Western Europe due to the shut-down of the conveyer belt that brings warm Caribbean waters north, giving places like Britain a milder climate. (National Geographic, 2008)
With glaciers melting not only from mountain tops, but also from the poles, ocean water levels will rise, changing the face of the Earth. Scientists are predicting a rise between 7 and 23 inches in sea level by the year 2100. A rise of just four inches would sink most of the South Seas islands and a large portion of South-East Asia. Around 100 million people live in these danger zones.
Florida and Louisiana are at risk of being flooded completely, destroying crops of fruits (such as oranges, strawberries, and melons) from Florida, and crops from Louisiana such as corn, cotton, and soy. Although neither Florida nor Louisiana are world producers, losing their contributions would still be felt, especially in the pocketbook.
Weather patterns will change and storms may become more severe. Hurricanes, tropical storms, droughts, heat-waves, and other natural disasters may become more intense and more frequent. Today's changing weather patterns supports this theory. Of the past twelve years, 11 of the hottest years have been recorded. (National Geographic, 2008)
Another dangerous possibility is looming: what happens if we can no longer control emissions finding their way into our atmosphere? It is called the Positive Feedback Effect, and it has the potential of making it impossible to control emissions, since we would be fighting Nature herself. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by freeing methane gas locked in permafrost and undersea deposits.
Carbon may also be released from sea ice with the melting of the glaciers. A rise in temperature will also cause an increase of water evaporation. Increased water evaporation will mean more cloud cover. More clouds floating about our atmosphere will act like a wool coat to our Earth, warming her more by not allowing heat to escape. (National Geographic, 2008)
Global Warming isn't going to just go away. This is a very real problem that humanity as a whole is facing. Even if we implemented clean air practices today, it would still take 'years' for these effects to show. Many greenhouse gases stay in our atmosphere years after they were released.
Technology isn't going to save us; our ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment will be our saving grace. As a developed country (as well as the largest contributor to global warming), the United States should step up and take the lead in protecting our future. We need to educate the public about the repercussions of not acting upon this impending disaster. No, the world won't look like it did in the movie The Day After Tomorrow; however, I doubt we'll like the true results of global warming any more.
References:
Goodstein, E. (January 2006). Climate Change: What the World Needs Now IsPolitics. World Watch, 19(Issue 1), 25-27.
National Geographic News. Global Warming Fast Facts. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206 _041206_global_war
ming.html

Read more...

Effects of Global Warming

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.

Some impacts from increasing temperatures are already happening.

•Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
•Researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
•Sea level rise became faster over the last century.
•Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
•Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
•Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.
.Other effects could happen later this century, if warming continues.

•Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters).
•Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger.
•Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. For example, plants could bloom earlier than their pollinating insects become active.
•Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
•Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
•Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes.
•Ecosystems will change—some species will move farther north or become more successful; others won’t be able to move and could become extinct. Wildlife research scientist Martyn Obbard has found that since the mid-1980s, with less ice on which to live and fish for food, polar bears have gotten considerably skinnier. Polar bear biologist Ian Stirling has found a similar pattern in Hudson Bay. He fears that if sea ice disappears, the polar bears will as well.

Source :http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects

Read more...

US top court questions global warming lawsuit

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether a global warming lawsuit against five big power companies can proceed, with several justices saying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not federal judges, should deal with the issue.
The high court justices sounded a skeptical note during arguments when they asked whether complicated environmental issues, such as how much greenhouse gas pollution is allowable and how it should be curbed, should be left to federal judges.

The big environmental case stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit claiming that five coal-burning utilities have created a public nuisance by contributing to climate change. Its consequences, such as rising seas, reduced crop yields and destruction of some hardwood trees, would harm the states' citizens.

The lawsuit, now involving six states, seeks to have a federal judge in New York order the utilities to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Both liberal and conservative justices questioned whether the lawsuit can go forward.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's liberals, took aim at the states' case, saying what they want is what the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to do with its proposed regulations of carbon emissions.

"How does a district judge decide what's reasonable and effective?" conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked rhetorically.

Another conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, also asked whether a district court judge could conduct the cost-benefit analysis to determine what was reasonable to reduce global warming: "I think that's a pretty big burden to impose on a district court judge."

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the facts at issue in the lawsuit usually were determined by an agency such as the EPA, rather than the courts. "There is an administrative agency. There is a Clean Air Act," she said.


EPA'S ROLE

Lawyers for the power companies, including an Obama administration attorney representing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, said the scope of the lawsuit was unprecedented in U.S. history, involving national and international issues outside the power of the courts.

"In the 222 years that the court has been sitting, there has never been a case with so many potential perpetrators and so many potential victims," said Neal Katyal, the administration's top courtroom lawyer.

The power companies -- American Electric Power Co Inc, Southern Co, Xcel Energy Inc and Cinergy Corp, which Duke Energy Corp acquired in 2006, along with TVA -- want the lawsuit dismissed.

The states -- California, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont -- said their citizens have been harmed by global warming and urged the top court to allow their lawsuit to go forward.

It is the most sweeping climate change case to come before the high court since its landmark 2007 ruling that authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions if they endanger human health.

In their comments on Tuesday, the justices said Congress has given the federal environmental agency the authority to do just that.

But even though the EPA has found officially that greenhouse pollution poses a health hazard, it has not yet gone forward to impose regulations on emissions, and Republicans in Congress have sought to limit the agency's ability to do so.

Coal-fired power plants emit about twice as much carbon dioxide -- which warms the Earth by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere -- as natural gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no greenhouse gases.

The five power utilities account for 10 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, said Barbara Underwood, who argued the case for the states.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

News Published by http://in.reuters.com on 20,april 2011

Read more...

Life Sciences

A team of scientists has discovered that human-introduced, invasive species of plants can have positive ecological effects. Tomás Carlo, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State University, and Jason Gleditsch, a graduate student in the Department of Biology, have studied how invasive fruiting plants affect ecosystems and how those effects, contrary to prevailing ideas, sometimes can be beneficial to an ecological community. The team's research, which will be published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, is expected to affect the way environmental resource managers respond to ecosystem maintenance. "Among conservation biologists, ecologists, and managers, the default approach is to try to eliminate and root out non-native, invasive shrubs -- anything that seems to change an ecosystem," Carlo said. "The fundamental goal is to return a natural area to its original, pristine state, with the native species occupying the dominant position in the community. But the problem is that most native communities already have been changed beyond recognition by humans, and many native species are now rare." Carlo explained that his team wanted to test whether certain well-established, invasive fruiting species have negative or positive effects on bird and fruiting-plant communities. "We wondered: Are we sometimes doing more harm than good when we eradicate plants that, despite being introduced recently, have formed positive relationships with native animals?" To be considered invasive, a species of plant must have been introduced by humans, and it must be dominant numerically in the new environment. To test the impact of an invasive fruiting-plant species on native bird communities, Carlo and Gleditsch sectioned off an area of central Pennsylvania known as the Happy Valley region, where honeysuckle -- a non-native fruiting plant that is considered invasive -- grows in abundance. They then assessed the abundance of bird species and fruiting plants -- including honeysuckle -- within the area. After comparing their data with similar data from urban, agricultural, and forested areas, they determined that the abundance of honeysuckle predicted the numbers and diversity of birds within the region and even beyond the region. That is, the honeysuckle and bird communities had formed a relationship known as mutualism -- a term that describes how two or more species interact by benefiting mutually from each other's existence. "The abundance of fruit-eating birds in the Happy Valley region is linked to the abundance of honeysuckle," Carlo explained. "Honeysuckle comprises more than half of all the fruits available in the landscape, and it benefits birds by providing them with a source of food in the fall. Meanwhile, birds benefit honeysuckle by dispersing the plant's seeds across a wider geographical area, helping the species to occupy more and more territory in areas already affected by human activities." Carlo explained that returning this particular ecosystem to its honeysuckle-free state could harm many species of native birds that now seem to rely on honeysuckle as a major food source in the fall. The team also tested the honeysuckle's influence, not just on birds, but on other species of fruiting plants. First, they grew native fruiting plants known as American nightshades in pots in a greenhouse. When the fruits were ripe on each plant, they then placed them into both honeysuckle-dense areas and areas area without honeysuckle but dominated by other native and non-native fruiting species. "We chose the American nightshade because it is native and common in the Happy Valley region," Carlo said. "Also, it is easy to manipulate experimentally, and its fruits are eaten -- and thus dispersed -- by native birds." In the area in which honeysuckle grew in abundance, the rate of fruit-removal of Carlo's American nightshades was 30-percent higher than in the areas without honeysuckle. Carlo explained that in the honeysuckle-rich area, birds were present in abundance. These birds allowed the nightshades to receive more seed-dispersal services -- an ecological process known as facilitation. "The newly introduced plants piggybacked on the success of the honeysuckle, which is a common phenomenon because fruit-eating birds usually feed on a variety of fruit -- whatever happens to be available to them," Carlo explained. "The same birds that ate the honeysuckle also ate the American nightshade, dispersing the seeds of both plants. It's a win-win-win for all three: the birds, the honeysuckle, and the nightshades." Carlo also explained that in Pennsylvania there are now three to four times more fruit-eating birds such as robins and catbirds than there were just 30 years ago, especially in landscapes of high human presence. So scientists should conclude that, while some invasive, human-introduced plants are definitely problematic, others could serve to restore ecological balance by providing essential food resources to native migratory birds that populate areas affected by humans. "Invasive species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and help restore native biodiversity in an inexpensive and self-organized way that requires little or no human intervention," Carlo said. In addition, Carlo explained, while eliminating an invasive species could result in harm to the newly formed balance of an ecosystem, large-scale attempts to remove species also could be a waste of time and tax dollars. He explained that when managers and agencies attempt to eradicate an invasive plant from a particular ecosystem, the species often ends up growing back anyway. "Nature is in a constant state of flux, always shifting and readjusting as new relationships form between species, and not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or created by humans," Carlo said. "We need to be more careful about shooting first and asking questions later -- assuming that introduced species are inherently harmful. We should be asking: Are we responding to real threats to nature or to our cultural perception and scientific bias?" Support for this research is provided by the Penn State Department of Biology and the Penn State Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences.- ready more at sciencedaily.com

Read more...

Global warming effects on Himalayan

Landscape shots of the Himalayan mountains of Nepal, where the effects of global warming are palpable. Nepal. 23/12/09. Local communities blame the gods for the changing weather whilst the developed countries in the world continue to expand and further contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The Nepalese government held a unique cabinet meeting at Kala Patthar near the base of Mount Everest following the Copenhagen climate summit.

Although Nepal's share in the global emission of greenhouse gases is almost nil, the consequences of global warming and climate change - receding snowlines, lake bursts and flash floods - threaten to wash away vast areas of this Himalayan country. The meltdown of glaciers due to global warming has sent a chill through the Himalayan region. Over the last couple of years, this mountainous country has recorded a hazy winter, hotter summer months, reduced rain fall and frequent landslides, which experts attribute to climatic change. Experts believe this could be a pointer to even more miserable weather to come. The average temperature in Nepal is rising by 0.75 degrees Celsius per decade says a senior official in the Ministry of Population and Environment. Global warming has increased the pace of snow melting, which, in turn, has made glacial lakes swell. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) had warned five years ago that 20 big glacial lakes in the country are at risk of floods from glacial lake bursts, which could trigger huge loss of life and property. More than five glacial lake bursts occurred in the past few decades, according to records and satellite imagery, says a climate change officer at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Nepal Program). WWF-Nepal acts as a member secretary organization of the Climate Change Network Nepal, which includes a number of domestic and international environmental bodies keeping a watch on global warming and its impact on Nepal. One of the most startling results of climate change can be seen in the spectacular Tsho Rolpa glacial lake situated in the Rolwaling valley, north of the capital Kathmandu. The lake had an area of 0.23 sq kilometers in 1950. It has since swollen to 1.7 sq kilometers, says the officials in the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology of Nepal government. After the UNEP warning, the Nepal government immediately started the Tsho Rolpa Risk Reduction Project, with the help of foreign aid. The project has siphoned a huge quantity of water and has brought down the water level by 3 metres. According to UNEP, the water level needs to be brought down by at least 20 meters to ensure safety. In August 2003, the Kawari glacier lake, situated in the foothills of the Annapurna II Mountain of the Himalayan region in Nepal burst, destroying property worth US $100,000. Five people were killed and dozens made homeless. Glacial lake bursts on a smaller scale have been frequently reported in the past few decades. On September 3, 1998, the Sabai Tsho lake-burst killed two persons and washed away fields and trekking trails of Solukhumbu district, which is home to Mount Everest. Likewise, in September 1997, the Dudh Koshi burst destroyed a mini hydro plant there. On July 1991, the Chilbung lake burst, damaging houses in Beding village in Rolwaling valley. These are just a few examples. Glacial lake bursts occurred in the past as well, but their frequency has increased of late because of the rising pace of snow melting. According to the studies carried out by ICIMOD (International Center for Integrated Mountain Development) and UNEP, there are 26 potential dangerous glacial lakes in Nepal that threaten millions of lives due to global warming. There are around 3,300 glaciers in the Nepali Himalayas and nearly 2,300 of them contain glacial lakes. Scientists have documented a similar trend in glaciers throughout the Himalaya, the mountain range that houses Mount Everest. The range, which spans several Asian nations, is known as the Water Tower of Asia, since billions of people depend on its life-bringing flows. Scientists fear that these water supplies could eventually dry up as the glaciers melt due to global warming. Experts claim that climate change due to global warming is responsible for erratic weather patterns such as the thick haze that shrouds Nepal's Terai (southern plains) area in winter. The haze destroys the cash crops of this region, which is the livelihood of the country. And due to the delay in regular snowfall, people living in the western Himalayan region are suffering from outbreaks of viral influenza, pneumonia, colds, diarrhoea and other diseases. It is very disappointing that while Nepal does not emit many greenhouse gases, it has to face the consequences of actions of other developed countries. Due to their actions, Nepal's white gold mountains that are also called the water tower of Asia, are under threat. Fear has risen that even the bio-diversity may have been affected by the change in climate. This could be particularly true in a country like Nepal where different species are found at different altitudes and climatic conditions. Nepal is already party to the international convention on climate change and is working to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But despite its deep concern, Nepal might not be able to cope with the challenge thrown open by global warming on its own, say government officials. According to ICIMOD, mountainous Nepal, home to eight of the world’s 14 tallest peaks, including Mount Everest, is vulnerable to climate change despite being responsible for only 0.027 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, among the world’s lowest. Average global temperatures are rising faster in the Himalayas than in most other parts of the world. The Khumbu Glacier on Mount Everest has retreated more than three miles (five kilometers) from the time when Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay famously set out to conquer the world's highest peak in 1953. WWF has released a report warning that Himalayan glaciers are currently receding at an average rate of 33 to 50 feet (10 to 15 meters) per year. In India the Gangotri Glacier, the source of the Ganges (or Ganga) River, is retreating at a rate of 75 feet (23 meters) annually. The report has also noted that air temperatures in the region have risen by 1.8°F (1°C) since the 1970s—twice as much as average warming in other northern hemisphere countries over the same time period. Meanwhile, Nepal's Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has proposed five key-points for the success of Copenhagen Climate Conference with urge of Nepali people for keeping the earth green so that humankind can keep the majestic Himalayas, the Alps and Andes eternally white under the snow. Addressing the High Level Segment of the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Prime Minister Nepal stressed that "If we fail to act now and act decisively, not only will future generation be deprived of experiencing the beauty of the white mountains, but also the livelihoods of over 1.3 billion people residing in the great river basins of the Himalayas will be seriously affected." Briefing the High Level Segment about Nepal's Cabinet Meeting held at Kalapatthar, the Base Camp of the Mt. Everest, Prime Minister Nepal said he saw up close from the top of the world the alarming impacts of climate change in the Himalayan Region. He also urged the developed countries to abide by their existing commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as already agreed within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. He has also urged the Summit Conference to set ambitious global goals and targets for Annex I countries to further reduce greenhouse gas emission. According to PM Nepal, Nepal is prepared to play its part and have developed one of the most successful community forestry programs. Given the huge potential of hydropower, solar and wind energy in Nepal, it can aspire to become a carbon neutral country in the long run contributing to lessen carbon emission in the region through the development of clean hydro energy in Nepal. He also added that the temperature in Nepal is increasing at a rate much higher than the global average. This in the long term would also adversely impact the hydrological system of the entire region. Formation and outburst of glacial lakes are perhaps the most visible impacts of climate change. Global climate change is thus adversely affecting the fragile mountain ecosystem while endangering its great biodiversity. As a landlocked and least developed country with subsistence agriculture, Nepal has the challenge to the changing life support system and protecting the environment and natural resources from the negative impact of climate change. PM Nepal proposed 5 Key points to make the Copenhagen summit a success in bringing effective solutions to fight with the Global warming. He has stressed that an ambitious and legally binding deal in Copenhagen following the Convention and Kyoto tracks is a must. Developed countries should have ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Atmospheric temperature should be kept below 1.5 degrees. LDCs and most vulnerable countries must be uppermost, as they are least able to withstand the adverse impacts of climate change. The effect of global warming is not an abstract scientific theory any more in the Himalayan Mountains; it has become a fact of everyday life. Its effects are visible everywhere: in snow-capped mountains that are turning into stark, exposed rock, and swollen lakes that have made traditional yak-herding routes impassable. There is also less direct impact that is more difficult to measure: droughts and cloudbursts, delayed monsoons and huge forest fires are a few. What many in the Himalayan mountains of Nepal and neighboring countries still do not know is the cause of this warming, and what to do about it. Some blame the gods for erratic weather — not the emission of greenhouse gases by rich countries. They do not know how the futures of their children and grandchildren are tied up with this Global warming. In fact, the messy development and fake promises having come out of the Copenhagen Summit for the international climate-change conference has given a pointer that these ignorant people will continue suffering from the Global warming not caused by them (source : demotix.com/)

Read more...

Is global warming drowning Bangladesh?

Md Saiful Haque Writes From Stockholm, Sweden

The impacts of global warming will be felt across the globe. Glaciers and ice caps will melt at faster rates. Occurrence of extreme floods and droughts will increase. Water stress will increase globally while water quality will deteriorate. In South Asia, seasonal variation of water will increase. Water resource scarcity with enhanced climate variability will intensify. More than a billion people will experience water stress in the region. There's high risk of rain, riverine and glacier-melt related floods. Flooding due to sea-level rise and deterioration of water quality will intensify. And what's more grim, there are uncertainties in the projections.



These are the basic findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s latest report by Bangladeshi scientist Dr Monirul Mirza, a lead author for IPCC, presented at the 2007 World Water Week high level panel discussion on climate change in Stockholm last August. The poorest countries have always been predicted to be worst hit by human-induced global warming and climate change. Bangladesh, as the lowest riparian country in the South Asian region that faces the sea -- and drains 92 percent of the snowmelt from the vast Himalayan mountain range -- is one of the most vulnerable places on earth to global warming and climate change. One of the poorest nations in the world, Bangladesh is projected to lose 17.5 percent of its land if sea level rises about 40 inches (1 m). And sea level is already rising in the Bay of Bengal even faster than expected, and pushing salty water inland, lowering the productivity of rice -- the country's key crop -- cultivation, especially in the south of the country. Coastal flooding will threaten animals, plants, and fresh water supplies. The current danger posed by storm surges when cyclones hit Bangladesh is likely to increase. Scientists believe global warming will make cyclones in the region bigger and more frequent. A UN report says: "Of the 12 hottest years on record 11 occurred between 1995 and 2006." What's more, the heat is only continuing to rise. Rising temperatures are creating havoc with the earth's weather, bringing too much rain to some, not enough to others. Climate change is likely to heavily hit Bangladesh by breaking down agricultural systems, which would seriously affect Bangladesh, leaving large sections of people facing malnutrition, worsening freshwater scarcity, increasing risks of fatal diseases, and triggering mass displacement due to recurring severe floods and storms like the recent Cyclone Sidr. Asia's largest rivers, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, join in the world's most extensive delta and flow into the Bay of Bengal. Here lies Bangladesh, a nation of 145 million people already beset with grinding poverty, severe frequent floods, and now also affected by rising sea levels. And the Kusiara and Surma rivers coming from the Himalayan-foot district Assam (in India) form the Meghna -- another mighty river. The Ganges and Brahmaputra meet the Meghna and then together course south in hundreds of distributaries to form the largest delta on the planet. Siltation of river-beds caused by sediments carried by rivers from upstream countries decelerates drainage and accentuates the intensity of floods. According to an estimate (Milliman, Meade 1983, taken from World Bank 1998), about 1.67 billion tons of suspended sediment discharged annually through the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers, while Bangladesh Water Development Board estimated a suspended sediment discharge of about 1.27 billion tons excluding bed load which may amount to about 50 percent of the total sediment load. Ninety percent of the land is floodplain, and the country has the world's highest density of rivers per unit of area. Yet, with increased population and expanded economic activity, Bangladesh faces serious shortages of water during the dry season -- flooding during the monsoon and too little in the dry season. Bangladesh's location and topography make it particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change and also hard to protect, where the rivers are constantly shifting, making it difficult to build up protective banks or large dikes to hold back the sea. The soil here is mud and, as such -- not steady. About one million people a year are displaced by loss of land along rivers due to constant river-bank erosion, and this is increasing. People are little aware of the effect on them of sea level rise and a warming climate. Because of its poverty -- 78 percent of its population lives on less than $2 a day -- Bangladesh cannot afford the kind of defences planned in Europe. World Bank reported, in 2001 that sea level was rising about 3 mm a year in the Bay of Bengal. It warned of loss of Bengal tigers in the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest -- and a world heritage site -- and threat to hundreds of bird species. 15 to 20 percent of Bangladesh is within one metre rise of sea level. The World Bank warned of a decline of rice crop up to 30 percent with predicted sea level rise. This is not a one-time event that sometime in the future will affect so many. It is a constant process of ever higher tides, which affects more and more people even in time of lower river flow and good weather. According to the latest UN Human Development Report (HDR) released in November, Bangladesh is among the countries to be worst-affected by climate change that may cause a large-scale reversal in human development. Describing the effects of climate change on the poorest countries as horrible, the HDR states: "Those who have largely caused the problem -- the rich countries -- are not going to be those who suffer the most in the short term. It is the poorest, who are not contributing significantly to green house gas emissions, who are the most vulnerable." The HDR report titled 'Fighting Climate Change' cautioned "Business-as-usual scenarios will trigger large scale reversals in human development, undermining livelihoods and causing mass displacement." UNDP administrator Kemal Dervis, in his introduction to the report, said: "It is the poor, a constituency with no responsibility for the ecological debt we are running up, who face the most immediate, and severe, human costs." With only 15 percent of world's population, rich countries account for nearly half of global carbon dioxide emissions, with the United States -- the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases -- leaving a carbon footprint that is nearly 70 times higher than in Bangladesh. Global carbon dioxide output in 2006 approached a staggering 32 billion tons, with about 25 percent of that coming from the US. There's not much Bangladesh can do. Unless developed countries cut their greenhouse emissions, our efforts will be undercut. The country is particularly vulnerable because it has a low institutional capacity and lacks resources to combat the changing climate. But the immediate consequences of climate change are in Bangladesh -- and also in Africa. As for Bangladesh, both adaptation and mitigation measures are essential to reduce high risks. Adaptation measures in poor countries like ours should be subsidised by rich countries. It is poor countries that are "suffering the brunt of climate change". But it is rich countries' greenhouse-gas emissions that have "caused this crisis in the first place". Without aid from richer countries to pay for more durable raised roads, hospitals and other infrastructures, Bangladesh will be unable to handle more disasters like deadly Sidr and frequent, ravaging deluges. With sea levels rising and rivers swelling in the coming decades, vast areas of the country would disappear, sparking an exodus of climate refugees. The terrible question is, where will they go? However, world leaders at the UN climate conference in mid-December, on the resort island of Bali, Indonesia, have agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009. The contentious, two-week conference ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help for fighting climate change.



















The new deal does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It simply sets an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.Resource:www.thedailystar.net

Read more...

HUMAN DISPLACEMENT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Global warming is big issue against us, people not being aware about cause and some general issue of global warming and its effects on our beautiful earth. Now whole world has tried to control on stop mixing co2 in atmosphere by first world’s industries. Common people must aware concern atmosphere of our earth is changing & average temperature rising day by day as result monsoon pattern could be change. Most rivers are depending on glacier and monsoon rain, we better know global warming is effecting on both, glaciers are melting, rivers and sea level will be rise as result small island could be hide and same river costal area will be lost resident land due to floods. People escape from its resident, mostly in costal areas. History is witness, nomadize happen when rivers flow changed, people’s first need is water and water is only major factor of displacement. Mostly Indians know this, since ancient time, human were lived at area of river sindhu at great culture was born near border of Pakistan-India, now entity lost, people were escape from land of Sindhu Area due to Sindhu river changed its flow. Intergovernmental panel on climate changed issued report on water and human society’s relations can be reflect due to climate change, Ocean and sea levels rise, atmospheric trouble in equatorial clime areas, temperature rise, heavy rain, floods and glacier melting is major things. We need concentrate on most important areas. Marshy area of costal sea, farming areas which depending on rivers is flowing result of glacier melting, water drought areas. According to survey, 2% marshy areas of costal sea in world, but 10% people are living on those 2% marshy areas on around the world. Important is every year big hurricanes come across those areas and killing people & doing heavy disaster. And one thing, if sea levels raise then millions of people leaves their area; millions of people will be home less. We aware that, sea level can rise due to climate change. Global warming is directly and indirectly effecting on water and its resources, Water is precious for human lives as we know well. If monsoon pattern change, glacier melting more then expect as result human community came in trouble, since ancient human’s displacement and will be displacement in future, but hope human get resource of water.

Read more...

ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE

Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide.

The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.

"The new study is unique in that, previously, similar studies made use of data from very few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region," said the study's author, Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "These results show the large spatial variability in the trends that only satellite data can provide." Comiso used surface temperatures taken from satellites between 1981 and 2001 in his study.

The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.

Researchers have suspected loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming Arctic temperatures that result from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

Warming trends like those found in these studies could greatly affect ocean processes, which, in turn, impact Arctic and global climate, said Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle. Liquid water absorbs the Sun's energy rather than reflecting it into the atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating positive feedbacks that lead to further melting. Such dynamics can change the temperature of ocean layers, impact ocean circulation and salinity, change marine habitats, and widen shipping lanes, Steele said.

In related NASA-funded research that observes perennial sea-ice trends, Mark C. Serreze, a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that in 2002 the extent of Arctic summer sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, suggesting this is part of a trend. "It appears that the summer 2003 -- if it does not set a new record -- will be very close to the levels of last year," Serreze said. "In other words, we have not seen a recovery; we really see we are reinforcing that general downward trend." A paper on this topic is forthcoming.

According to Comiso's study, when compared to longer term ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.

Comiso's study also finds temperature trends vary by region and season. While warming is prevalent over most of the Arctic, some areas, such as Greenland, appear to be cooling. Springtimes arrived earlier and were warmer, and warmer autumns lasted longer, the study found. Most importantly, temperatures increased on average by 1.22 degrees Celsius per decade over sea ice during Arctic summer. The summer warming and lengthened melt season appears to be affecting the volume and extent of permanent sea ice. Annual trends, which were not quite as strong, ranged from a warming of 1.06 degrees Celsius over North America to a cooling of .09 degrees Celsius in Greenland.

If the high latitudes warm, and sea ice extent declines, thawing Arctic soils may release significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now trapped in permafrost, and slightly warmer ocean water could release frozen natural gases in the sea floor, all of which act as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, said David Rind, a senior researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York. "These feedbacks are complex and we are working to understand them," he added.

The surface temperature records covering from 1981 to 2001 were obtained through thermal infrared data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites. The studies were funded by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, which is dedicated to understanding the Earth as an integrated system and applying Earth System Science to improve prediction of climate, weather and natural hazards using the unique vantage point of space.


Seasons of Change: Evidence of Arctic Warming Grows

SYNOPSIS:

Experts have long regarded Earth's polar regions as early indicators for global climate change. But until the last few years, wide ranging, comprehensive research about overall polar conditions has been challenging to conduct. Now a more than twenty-year record of space based measurements has been analyzed by researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Based on their findings, evidence of a warming planet continues to grow.

CHANGING SEASONS, CHANGING ICE

Research and data collection of Arctic Ocean ice isn't easy. But in this sequence using data collected by a number of satellites from 1979 to 2003, we see how scientists have been able to stitch together a careful record of sea ice in that part of the world. In 2002 scientists recorded the lowest concentration of sea ice ever in The Arctic. While temperature changes vary across the vast expanse of The Arctic, overall trends suggest that decreasing ice concentrations are due to a significant increase in ocean warming, from rising surface temperatures to the total number of annual "melt days".

Less ice means more open water. More open water means greater absorption of solar energy. More absorption of solar energy means increased rates of warming in the ocean, which naturally tends to yield faster rates of ice loss.

The data used to create these images come from a variety of different instruments flying on a group of satellites; they include the scanning multi-channel microwave radiometer attached to the Nimbus 7 satellite, and the special sensor microwave imagers attached to the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's F8, F11, and F13 satellites.

Part of the challenge for researchers was in the elimination of "bad data", from atmospheric interference to instrument calibration issues and more. One reason that data acquired by microwave detecting instruments such as those flying on the DMSP satellites is that microwaves can penetrate the cloud cover that frequently blankets the Arctic. One of the most apparent characteristics of Arctic ice is just how dynamic and complex an environment it is. Through continued research and gathering of data, scientists hope to achieve a better level of understanding about the processes at work in the cryosphere.
Read full story on http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

Read more...

Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing

FREEZING cold front swept over much of northern China on Sunday with snowstorms snarling traffic and air travel, while some of the coldest temperatures in decades were forecast for coming days.

Gale-force winds sweeping down from Siberia could result in temperatures as low as minus 16 degrees in the capital today, the Beijing meteorological station said. Such temperatures are believed to be the coldest in the capital in 40 years. Yesterday, major highways in Beijing and Tianjin, as well as in the surrounding provinces and regions of Hebei, Shanxi and Inner Mongolia were closed due to the heavy snowfall. Beijing Capital Airport said 120 departures had been postponed and 86 flights cancelled from late Saturday until mid-morning yesterday because of heavy snow and poor visibility. Freezing temperatures have also hit Britain, which is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century. Parts of Scotland have been under snow for nearly three weeks and temperatures are expected to drop to minus 16 degrees. Meteorologists predicted the freezing snap will last until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating. And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder. On New Year’s Day 10 extreme weather warnings were in place, with heavy snow expected in northern England and Scotland. The continued freezing temperatures did not signal bad news for everyone, however. CairnGorm Mountain said it has had its best Christmas holiday season in 14 years. More than 15,000 skiers have used the resort since the start of December, compared with 2000 last year. The cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long-range forecast, published in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which was marked by heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years. Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said: “It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years.” A fleet of gritters in Perth, central Scotland, was grounded because of the cold, leaving roads untreated in temperatures of minus 10 degrees. Perth and Kinross Council said the gritters were unable to leave the depot after the extreme weather led to difficulties in refuelling. Perth resident Ian Thomson said: “I’ve heard of the rail companies blaming the wrong kind of snow and leaves on the line for disruption, but for the council to say it was too cold to get the gritters out is just ridiculous.” Source:theage.com.au

Read more...

Ocean wind patterns Could effect

Scientists at the University of Liverpool have found that natural variability in the earth's atmosphere could be masking the overall effect of global warming in the North Atlantic Ocean.

Scientists have previously found that surface temperatures around the globe have risen over the last 30 years in accord with global warming. New data, however, shows that heat stored in the North Atlantic Ocean has a more complex pattern than initially expected, suggesting that natural changes in the atmosphere also play a role.

The Liverpool team, in collaboration with the University of Duke in the US, analysed 50 years of North Atlantic temperature records and used computer models to assess how the warming and cooling pattern was controlled. They found that the tropics and mid-latitudes have warmed, while the sub-polar regions have cooled.

Professor Ric Williams, from the University's School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explains: "We found that changes in the heat stored in the North Atlantic corresponded to changes in natural and cyclical winds above the North Atlantic. This pattern of wind movement is called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is linked to pressure differences in the atmosphere between Iceland and The Azores.

"The computer model we used to analyse our data helped us to predict how wind and heat exchange with the atmosphere affects the North Atlantic Ocean's heat content over time. We found that the warming over the mid latitudes was due to the wind redistributing heat, while the gain in heat in the tropics and loss in heat at high latitudes was due to an exchange of heat with the atmosphere.

"These local changes in heat storage are typically 10 times larger than any global warming trend. We now need to look at why changes are occurring in wind circulation, as this in itself could be linked to global warming effects."

Although natural variability appears to be masking global warming effects in the ocean, scientists still believe that global warming is occurring, as evident through a wide range of independent signals such as rising surface and atmospheric temperatures, reduced Arctic summer sea ice and the reduced extent of many glaciers showing changes in the environment.The research is published in Science. This study was jointly supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the US National Science Foundation.Source:sciencedaily.com

Read more...

Waste Managment

Waste Management is the term that refers to the collection, processing, recycling, transport, and monitoring of waste products. The waste products means the various materials produced by human activity and is undertaken for reducing their effect on health, environment or aesthetics. Another application of the waste management is to recover the various resources from it. It involves the management of solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes. Each type of waste requires a different methods and fields of expertise. The practices of waste management differ from developed and developing nations. In fact, there is difference in methods used in the urban and rural areas, and also for industrial or residential producers. It is the responsibility of local government authorities to manage non-hazardous residential and institutional waste in metro areas. On other hand the management for non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste is done by the generator. There are various methods of waste disposal including integrated waste management, Plasma gasification, Landfill, Supercritical water decomposition and Incineration. There are lots of concepts about waste management which differ in their usage as per the varying regions or countries. Some of the widely used concepts include Waste hierarchy, Extended producer responsibility and Polluter pays principle. The waste hierarchy points to the “reduce, reuse and recycle” that classify waste management strategies as per their effectiveness in regards to waste minimization. The waste hierarchy is the cornerstone of majority of waste minimization strategies. It focuses on taking out the maximum practical advantages from products and generating least amount of waste. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a strategy that is intended for the integration of all costs related with products across their life cycles into the market price of the product. The Polluter Pays Principle suggests that in case of waste leading to any impact on the environment, the polluting party is held responsible and it needs to pays for it. The waste management refers to the need for a waste producer to pay for proper waste disposal. source wastemanagement.in.

Read more...

Hurricanes Have Doubled Due to Global Warming, Study Says

The number of Atlantic hurricanes that form each year has doubled over the past century and global warming is largely to blame, according a new study.

The increase occurred in two major steps of about 50 percent each, one in the 1930s and the second since 1995. "It hasn't been a steady, gradual increase," said Greg Holland, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The increases coincide closely with rises in sea surface temperatures in the eastern Atlantic tropics. Previous studies have attributed these rises to human emissions of greenhouse gases. "That [correlation] implies there is a substantial contribution by greenhouse warming to the current crop of tropical cyclones," Holland said. The study also shows that the proportion of major hurricanes to less intense hurricanes has sharply increased in recent years, which agrees with earlier studies showing an increase in stronger storms. However, the new study found the proportion of major hurricanes has fluctuated with a "remarkably constant period of oscillation" over the past century, Holland said. The oscillation appears to be a natural variability not associated with warming. So while the storms' severity seems to fluctuate in a natural cycle, their frequency is on the rise, he explained. "What we're seeing [now] is a high point of major storms, which has been a very, very stable oscillation, combined with a sharp increase in the frequency of all storms, which has been a trend," Holland said. Holland and Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta published their findings online today in the research journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. He is a leading critic of studies that link increased storm intensity to global warming, saying historical data are too crude to determine long-term trends. The same, he argues, is true for storm frequency. "The doubling in the number of storms that they find in their paper is just an artifact of technology, not climate change," he wrote. Airplanes and satellites outfitted with sensitive instruments to monitor tropical storms did not exist a hundred years ago. Aircraft began monitoring hurricanes in 1944, satellites about 1970. Recent research by Landsea finds three to four tropical storms were missed before the mid-1960s. And one storm a year was missed from the 1970s to the 1990s. "When one takes into account these missing storms, the upward trend disappears and large multiyear variations remain," he said. According to Holland, however, the technological improvements cannot account for all the observed increase in tropical storms. His new study accounts for three missed storms per year in the pre-satellite era, and a statistically significant increase is still present, he said. "So, yes there's uncertainty, there's no doubt about that," Holland said. "But it doesn't change our conclusions." Frequency Transitions According to the study, the period from 1900 to 1930 saw an average of six Atlantic tropical storms a year, with four of those storms growing into hurricanes. From 1930 to 1940, the annual average increased to ten, with five hurricanes and five tropical storms. Then, from 1995 to 2005, the average number of storms increased to 15, with 8 hurricanes and 7 tropical storms. Even 2006, which seemed mild in the wake of the record-breaking 2005 season, saw ten tropical storms, the authors note. Holland likened the transition phases to a thunderstorm in the Rocky Mountains—the sun rises and warms up the clear blue skies for hours, and then suddenly a thunderstorm develops. "That's a very good example, but what we're looking at is happening on the global scale," he said. The most recent period has yet to stabilize, leading the authors to conclude there may be even more active hurricane seasons in the future, though other factors may dampen the storm activity. "What I will say is there is no evidence that I'm aware of and nothing I can think of which indicates they are going to go back down," Holland said. Increase your knowledge and be aware about global warming and its impact, for more knowdlage visit (Courtesy:nationalgeographic.com)

Read more...