More Scientific support for Human Induced Global Warming.

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December, 2003

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.


The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.

AGU

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

US Experts warn US{Again}

Climate Change Beyond Doubt: Karl, Trenberth Say
No Doubts Global Warming Is Real, U.S. Experts Say
Reuters News Service, Dec. 5, 2003

WASHINGTON - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said. Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say - contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.

"There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate," wrote Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise," they added in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, there is a 90 percent probability that average global temperatures will rise by between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 and 4.9 degrees Celsius) because of human influences on climate.
Such dramatic warming will further melt already crumbling glaciers, inundating coastal areas. Many other groups have already shown that ice in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica is melting quickly.

Karl and Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 percent* since preindustrial times.
Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 greenhouse gas, causing warming temperatures by trapping the Sun's energy in the atmosphere.
Emissions of sulfate and soot particles have significant effects too, but more localized, they said.

*empirical proof in the form of Isotopic fossil fuel signature points finger at fossil fuel emissions{DMayes}


The Heat is Online Website

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Global warming?" Ha! Bring it on.

Enough with the junk-science.

Temperatures are much the same. I detect no such change.

What evidence? Politically motivated "tree hugger" enviro wacko hearsay?

NASA data shows a slight cooling trend over the last several decades.

What so what if the world did warm? It's too cold anyways. I would like the planet to be warmer.

And I read that drought-induced wildfires burned far more acres, before humans interfered and thought them even managable. Occasional wildfires are the natural way that overgrowth and deadwood is cleared out of the forests it seems. And it's human interests that need to be protected from them, not the forests, as the forests have been shaped by wildfires. Wildfires out in remote wilderness, should be left to burn themselves out, I think, to avoid needlessly wasting taxpayer money to tame nature in wildlands where it isn't even needed. Perhaps we are really entering an ice age instead, judging by greatly diminished acreage burned and increased forestation?

If we think there are any more "heatwaves" than in the past, it is because we have become soft and spoiled rotten, in the frigid cold air conditioning now in most every building. It's a wonder all our ancestors didn't melt before air conditioning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please stop trolling.

 

2003 3rd warmest on record.

2003 third warmest year yet as global warming continues

GENEVA (AFP) Dec 16, 2003

Global warming continued through 2003 as Europe's hottest summer on record
helped fuel the third warmest year on record worldwide, international
weather experts at the UN said on Tuesday.

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said in its annual
statement on the global climate that the rising average temperatures
helped generate exceptional drought, floods, hurricanes and typhoons.
Meanwhile, global insurers counted the cost of the impact of extreme
weather, as storm damage accounted for eight billion dollars in damage
claims in 2003, according to one of the world's largest re-insurance
companies, SwissRe.

"This year was very warm but it was not the warmest ever, very probably it
will be in third place among the warmest years," said Michel Jarraud,
deputy secretary general of the WMO.

"Temperatures since 1976 have progressed three times more than during the
20th century, so the rate of increase in temperatures is accelerating," he
added.

The global average temperature this year was expected to have risen by
0.45 degrees Celsius by the end of December, WMO said.

The warmest year so far was recorded in 1998, with a rise of 0.55 degrees
Celsius in global temperatures, capping the warmest century in the
millennium, according to the agency, which groups the world's national
weather forecasters.

The second warmest was 2002.

Average temperatures rose more sharply in the northern hemisphere in 2003
than in the southern hemisphere, with unprecedented highs in western
Europe over the summer, WMO found.

"In France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Britain and Spain, there
were an estimated 21,000 deaths linked to this heatwave, so it was really
something exceptional," Jarraud told journalists.

The heat also melted glaciers in Europe's mountain ranges twice as fast as
the record set in 1998, while the Arctic ice pack shrank in September,
approaching the record low of 5.3 million square kilometres (2.2 square
miles) set in 2002, WNMO said.


The five most costly disasters during 2003 happened in the United States
and Canada, and they were all weather-related, it added in a statement.
Each led to claims of more than one billion dollars.


The WMO's data on annual temperature change is based on an average of
temperatures between 1961 and 1990, which is used as a reference.

 

Satelite evidence of Global warming

New Analysis of Satellite Data Provides Direct Evidence that Less Heat is Escaping into Space Due to Increase of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases.
(3/14/2001)

Scientists has dispelled any lingering doubts about the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Wednesday with new evidence from satellites orbiting the Earth. A comparison of satellite data from 1970 and 1997 has yielded what scientists say is the first direct evidence that greenhouse gases are building up in Earth's atmosphere and allowing less heat to escape into space. Evidence was also found of smaller increases in chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants blamed for destroying the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet radiation.

"We've seen greenhouse gas increases that we can link to a change in outgoing long-wave radiation, which is believed to force the climate response," said Dr. Helen Brindley, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College in London. The study was reported in the journal Nature and should finally silence critics not satisfied with the already large amount of indirect evidence for the greenhouse effect.

"We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity: This shows the greenhouse effect is operating and what we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases," said John Harries, leader of the research team at Imperial College in London. "It's actual measurements of what's coming out of the Earth. It's not from someone's computer simulation," added Richard Bantages, another member of the team.

"Because we know where in the spectrum certain greenhouse gases are observed, when we look at the changes between the two periods we can say that change is due to changes in CO2 or methane," Brindley said. "There has been quite a significant change over the past 30 years, particularly in methane." One of the most powerful greenhouse gases, methane, is emitted from landfill sites and disused mines.

The scientists took into account the influence of clouds and seasonal variations, so the changes they observed could only be explained by long-term changes in greenhouses gases, they said. "It's the first time that we have seen observationally that these changes are really having an effect on the radiative forcing of the climate," said Brindley. Radiative forcing is the measure of the climate effects of greenhouse gases.

Without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists estimate the Earth's temperature and sea levels will rise, leading to increased flooding and drastic climate changes. Industrialized nations agreed to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases under a plan agreed in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 but talks in the Hague in November to finalize details broke down.

Scientists have long suspected that carbon dioxide and other waste gases are increasing the trapping of heat close to Earth in what is called a greenhouse effect. In the new study, the researchers compared readings of infrared light from the Earth's surface and found less was escaping into space in 1997, specifically in the wavelengths known to be absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone.

Atmospheric scientists not involved in the study said the satellite data provide concrete confirmation that greenhouse gases are building up. Drew Shindell, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said the research should end the debate over the greenhouse effect. "One of the main things that cause people to be skeptical of global warming is the lack of that real, definite connection between greenhouse gases and the planet getting warmer," Shindell said. "This really gives concrete evidence for the first time that greenhouse gases are changing the energy balance of the planet."

A report released in January by an international panel of climate experts predicted global temperatures could rise as much as 10.5 degrees over the next century, primarily because of pollution. American and European environmental officials, however, have not been able to agree on how to implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which calls for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. And U.S. President Bush has backed away from a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants, saying mandatory controls would lead to higher electricity prices.

In the British study, the researchers compared data from the Japanese ADEOS satellite, which produced about nine months of data starting in 1996, and NASA's Nimbus 4 satellite between April 1970 and January 1971. Only clear-sky readings of the atmosphere over the central Pacific were compared.

Bantages said the researchers plan to dig deeper into the satellite readings to see if the amount or type of clouds changed substantially between 1970 and 1997. Especially interesting are high cirrus clouds made up mostly of ice crystals. These allow the sun's rays to pass through to the Earth but block the infrared radiation being reflected back into space.






Satellite data reveals rapid Arctic warming

13:16 24 October 03

NewScientist.com news service

A NASA satellite survey of the Arctic has revealed just how rapidly the region is warming. The overall trend of rising temperature over the past 20 years is eight times higher than that recorded by ground measurements over the past century.
The satellite observations are vital because they can cover the whole Arctic, not just the regions accessible to researchers on the surface. The data also shows that summer sea ice cover is continuing its retreat.
"Climate is changing, the Arctic is changing rapidly, and it has significant effects on lower latitudes," said Mark Serreze, of the University of Colorado in Boulder, at a press conference on Thursday.
Climate models predict global warming will have its strongest effects in polar regions, making them a valuable laboratory to understand climate variations, says David Rind, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Uneven retreat
Serreze's analysis shows sea ice coverage in 2002 was the lowest in the 20 years of satellite observations. The retreat is uneven, showing up particularly in areas north of Alaska, where temperature data confirms the warming predicted by climate models. It is also consistent with reports that sea ice is growing thinner.
The analysis of Arctic surface temperatures was conducted by Josefino Comiso, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and reported in the Journal of Climate. His data show that sea-ice temperatures during the summer - the most critical season for ice cover - increased 1.22°C per decade. The annual sea ice trend was smaller, 0.33°C degree per decade.
Although winters have cooled, that effect was more than offset by rising spring, summer and autumn temperatures, which combined to stretch the melt season by between 10 and 17 days. Annual land-surface temperatures increased most over North America - 1.06°C per decade - and rose 0.50°C per decade over Eurasia.

Feedback loop
The retreating summer sea ice has knock-on effects. The exposure of more open water, which absorbs more solar energy than ice, means further warming is likely. More ocean open ocean also means winds can build up stronger waves that are eroding Arctic coasts.
"There are communities in Alaska that are having to move their villages" to escape erosion of low-lying coasts, says Michael Steele, an oceanographer at the University of Washington in Seattle.


One push behind the warming is a natural cycle called the North Atlantic Oscillation. For the past 20 years, it has been stuck in a phase where low pressure over the Arctic is increasing heat transport from middle latitudes.
Part of the effect may be natural, but Serreze adds that there is growing evidence that human-caused changes in greenhouse gas and stratospheric ozone concentrations may shift the oscillation into the Arctic-warming mode.
That is evidence is unlikely to be welcomed by the US Bush Administration, which remains officially sceptical about global warming. But Rind warns the evidence shows rapid change now: "We can't afford to wait long times for technological innovation" to control greenhouse emissions.
Journal reference: Journal of Climate (vol 16, p 3498)

Jeff Hecht


New Scientist

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Put this man in power

 

I don't think Pronatalist is a real person. More likely some sort of troll-bot.

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/...lth/7721956.htm


2003 ties as world's second-hottest year

At 1.03 degrees higher than average, it seemed to continue a trend toward global warming.
By Seth Borenstein
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - It's cold comfort to people shivering in much of the United States right now, but 2003 tied for the world's second-hottest year, according to federal government data released yesterday.
The world's average temperature last year was 58.03 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. That's 1.03 degrees warmer than the 124-year world average.

The United States fared a bit better than many other countries in 2003. Americans experienced only the 20th-hottest year on record last year, with an average temperature of 53.7 degrees. That was nine-tenths of a degree warmer than normal.

Going into December, it looked as though 2003 would rank only as the world's third-hottest year, but a toasty final month tied the year with 2002 for second place since record-keeping began Jan. 1, 1880, said Jay Lawrimore, the global data center's climate monitoring chief. The hottest year was 1998, with an average temperature of 58.14.
The five hottest years on record all have occurred since 1997, and the 10 hottest since 1990. It has been 221 months since the world recorded a colder-than-normal month.

The consensus of most climate scientists is that the world is warming and will continue to get hotter because gases emitted from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline, are trapping heat from the sun.
Global temperatures increased 1 degree in the 20th century and probably will increase 2 to 10 more degrees by 2100, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group that includes many of the world's leading weather experts, predicted in 2001.

"Mother Nature keeps reminding us that [global warming] is going on," said Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "The evidence never really comes out to contradict it, even though the man on the street says, 'It's bloody freezing out here.' "

Global warming may be playing a role in Americans' sense that January has been especially cold, Trenberth and Lawrimore said. Because winters have been milder in the 1990s and 2000s, cold snaps feel colder, as people are unaccustomed to them, they said.

 

Yeahhh, I wonder if this life adapted to it's environment, if this life developed with what was chemically present in the air at that time.

No it doesn't TROLL.
Sorry, but your attempt to look knowledegable/intelligent has failed dismally.

It's the economy stupid.
It's the rate stupid.

Your treading on a VERY fine line Mr David Mayes. Read it: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17461

 

First, all life adapts to it's environment. It's how species evolve. The atmosphere was no different then than it is now with the exception of the CO2 levels. The atmosphere has changed very little in the past 3.8 billion years.

Secondly, I am not trolling. I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion about something I know a great deal about - geology. Obviously my search for intelligent life needs to take place elsewhere.

 

Try and tell me this is the warmest year ever when right now its 6 degrees farenheit outside with a 15 degree windchill. And last week I had 3 snowdays, the first 3 in two years. Did I forget to mention the -25 degree weather in the northern Midwest?


Later
T

Post all the studies that you want... The fact remains that we definitley have not been around long enough to come to a formal conclusion as to whats happening... We can not ever predict the weather all that well. I mean, a century of watching the skies....ok... but there is still room for randomness.... Even some new physicists are challenging that the speed of light is not a constant....

 

Princess, don't waste your time with David. When you consider the level of scientific arguments he uses (see the thread "Is global warming and environmental concer?) you will stop losing your time with David Mayes, because he claims to be GODLIKE, and have an UNDISPUTED Greenhouse Gases theory - that has not been able to explain.

Go to other more interesting threads, or create a new one, especially if you have knowledge in geology, that would make an interesting debate. An example: "Is petroleum a "fossil fuel?". How was it formed, and why it keeps forming?

But please, avoid David Mayes as the Black Plague

 

To add to the confusion, some scientists predict that the first stages of global warming could actually induce local ice-ages in parts of the world as the gulf-stream heat turbine is shut down due to melting polar galciers lowering the salinety of seawater, preventing the transport of warm equatorial water towards the north and south.

this has happened in the past. The fact that you experience very cold winter right now in the USA and Canada might actually be a sign of global warming! But it sure doesn't feel like it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If man induced global warming is of real significance (wich is still disputed, as we can see in this clash of the titans thread) than parts of countries with a land climate , like siberia would profit from the global warming, but coastal areas, living by the grace of the gulfstream, ireland, the USA east-coast could be screwed by Mr. Freeze, wich in turn would lead to increased fossile fuel use to keep your hands warm.

 

Vortexx, that the warming of the entire planet might cause deep cold spells and polar waves is like <b>cooling your favourite beer ... in the oven.</b> Or making water boil in a pan for getting ice cubes for your whisley.

The notion of "global warming" being able to provoke deep cold waves and freezing temperatures is the result of Mother Nature not wanting to cooperate with climate computerized models. "Scientists" then resorted to this outlandish (and last try) to keep scaring poor people into believing the warming will be catastrophic.

They have not explained the mechanism for these cold spells or why warm temps can bring cold temps. And the scare of the Gulf Stream shutting down has also been disproved. Scares are disappearing in these cold days...

We have taken hundreds of temperature charts from all over the world (rural areas, and some cities too), plotted the trends, and found that only about 10% of the records show a natural warming trend (about 0.5º C to 1º C, well within natural variances).

About 35% of the records show no warming at all, and about 55% show a significant cooling trend. So there must be some mysterious records - not available for us, and used only by the IPCC - that must necessarilly show a terrible warming (more than 10º C) in order to compensate all those hundreds (thousands?) of stations that show a cooling trend, or simply, no trend at all.

I will post some of those graphs, and the list of stations already plotted.

 

Most of those deaths ocurred in France. France does not provide air conditioning in retirement homes, hospitals, or nursing homes. During August, the month that most of the deaths ocurred, the majority of young people who normally care for the elderly go away on holiday (Paris is mostly closed and deserted at this time.) Smoking is rampant in France and is the direct cause of most respiratory diseases. So to recap, there was a heat wave, and a lot of sick elderly smokers died due in part to their own lifestyle, and also because the younger generation was unprepared and or unwilling to properly support the elderly. So do not go and throw this statistic around, it is bunk. A lot of elderly would also die in the USA in Florida if they did not have air conditioning etc. Here we see how France failed to care for their elderly. I suspect that French politicians are trying to spin the losses of onto GW. Go figure, they have to get reelected.
I agree that GW is ocurring, BTW, I just disagree as to exactly how much we are causing and what we can do to better our situation. I disagree on spending any money until we know that data (we should fund a lot more climate research.)
Finally, just look at the time window you provided, from around 1960-2000. Too narrow. Climate change occurs over hundreds and thousands of years. if you look at the long term trend, the warming looks a lot less like human caused. Recent discoveries regarding the sun and how it actually cycles the amount of energy it puts out fills a large gap in the GW mystery, lending less credbility to a large human influence. Further, a medium sized volcanic eruption places more greenhouse gasses and particulates into the atmosphere than humanity can produce in decades. So the issue is not clear at all, and admittedly extremely complex.

 

Quasi, the French incident had other causes besides global warming, but it is the warming trend that was the "straw on the camel's back". This is only one example of situations around the world that exist at a tipping point, where the influence of one factor among many makes the difference between life and death. Look at Africa, for instance, drought caused by lack of rain leads to refugees, which leads to political unrest, which leads to the neglect of other problems like AIDS. There are many situations around the world like this, subject to cascading and unpredictable effects. The earth will survive, life will survive, but human societies will suffer. We are more dependent on climate than most people think, just look at how important the weather report is on TV. Wait until the Atlantic Ocean freezes over, then there will be no more doubt something significant is happening. The upper atmosphere is already thinning, causing satellites to slow down at a slower rate than 10 years ago. The human influence must be significant, there is simply no way we can change the earth and atmosphere as much as we have without any effect whatsoever!

 

First, when discussing GW, you have to look at trends of over 500 years, preferably the longest possible data set. I contend that last summer was a statistical outlier, just as gamblers have winning streaks. It happens, especially in an extremely complex chaotic system such as the climate. I also continue to contend that the deaths were the direct result of a) The vacation culture of France and their unwillingness to protect the elderly, and b) The choice of those who died to smoke tobacco cigarettes. Further, spending large amounts of money to extend the lives of elderly smokers is probably a waste of public health dollars. People freely choose to smoke, so they should accept responsibility. If families want to install air conditioners for their grandparents so be it. Oh, I forgot, they went on vacation for the entire month of August.
As for Africa? What a mess. There are many problems, most of them social which is directly linked to education and their poor economy. Many natural resources are only benefitting a handful of dictators, as opposed to using the funds to improve their society. Although there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and food supply is increasing, malnutrition is the undisputed number one cause of death of human beings (by a huge margin.) Poor sanitation, lack of clean drinking water can be said to be the second direct cause. Underlying this is economic, educational, and apathy towards corruption. To further muddy the waters, religious groups are forbidding the use of contraceptives to halt the spread of HIV infection. Big problems, no easy solutions, and money alone will do nothing. Maybe our governments can focus on that for a while instead of silly, irrelevant issues like a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts? How selfish, how stupid that the only thing the big three religions can agree on is that homosexuals should not be allowed to have a civil, non religious marriage, when religious zealots are butchering unarmed women and children in the streets. Apparently that is not a "crisis," but two gay men who might even have adopted children should not be allowed to be married. What a world we live in.

 

Beware the profits of doom.

There are those that fear change and those that embrace it.

How about embracing our new artificial world.. We have done very well so far and it would be suicide for us to stop our rampage. Remember, our world will die no matter what we do.

I say bring it on. We are human and we will survive.