You're right about the warming, but I don't see where you get the cooling.
Posted on 04/03/2002 9:57:45 AM PST by cogitator
Effects of Climate Warming Already in Evidence
WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2002 (ENS) - Ecosystems around the globe are showing the effects of climate warming. Earlier arrival of migrant birds, earlier appearance of butterflies, earlier spawning in amphibians, earlier flowering of plants - spring has been coming sooner every year since the 1960s, researchers reported Wednesday.
The report from German scientists investigates all regions of the globe. They predict some species will vanish because they cannot expand into new areas when their native climate heats up.
"Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible," write Gian-Reto Walther of the University of Hanover, Germany, and colleagues in this week's issue of the journal "Nature."
After reviewing changes in various animal and plant populations over the past 30 years of warming at the end of the 20th century, the authors found "a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems" from the poles to the equatorial seas.
"There is now ample evidence that these recent climatic changes have affected a broad range of organisms with diverse geographical distributions," Walther and his team report.
"The implications of such large scale, consistent responses to relatively low average rates of climate change are large," the researchers warn, adding that, "the projected warming for the coming decades raises even more concern about its ecological and socio-economic consequences."
The Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, the researchers note. Starting around 1976, the rate of global warming more than doubled, changing faster than at any other time during the last 1,000 years.
However, average global climate has far less effect on local ecosystems than do local and regional climate changes.
The reproduction of amphibians and reptiles is disrupted by changes in temperature and humidity. In painted turtles, the ration of male to female offspring is related to the mean July temperature, said Walther, and the production of male offspring could be compromised even by modest temperature increases.
In the polar regions, winter freezes are now occurring later and ending earlier, leading to a 10 percent decrease in snow and ice cover since the late 1960s.
These dramatic local changes are having equally dramatic effects on cold weather species such as penguins, seals and polar bears, the researchers found.
Miniscule Southern Ocean crustaceans called krill, a key food source for higher predators such as penguins and other seabirds, whales, seals, as well as a fishery target, are being influenced by climate change. Walther's team found the warming climate is affecting the reproductive grounds of krill by reducing the area of sea ice formed near the Antarctic Peninsula, which leads to both food web and human economic consequences.
Rapid environmental warming has been reported over the last 30 to 50 years at a number of stations in the Antarctic, particularly in the Antarctic Peninsula region and on sub-Antarctic islands, along with changes in precipitation patterns.
Likewise, tropical oceans have increased in temperature by up to eight degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, the research team has found, triggering widespread coral bleaching.
Climate linked invasions of warm weather species into traditionally colder areas includes the immigration of unwanted neighbors - epidemic diseases. "There is much evidence that a steady rise in annual temperatures has been associated with expanding mosquito borne diseases in the highlands of Asia, East Africa and Latin America," the study says.
Geographical differences are evident for both plants and birds, with delayed rather than earlier onset of spring phases in southeastern Europe, including later bird arrival in the Slovak Republic, and a later start of the growing season in the Balkan region, the team has found.
Later onset of autumn changes were recorded, too, but these shifts are less pronounced and show a more variable pattern. In Europe, for example, the length of the growing season has increased in some areas by up to 3.6 days per decade over the past 50 years.
Overall, Walther's team reports, "trends of range changes show remarkable internal consistency between studies relating to glaciers, plant and insect ranges and shifting isotherms," which are lines of constant temperature.
The study concludes that based on the evidence "only 30 years of warmer temperatures at the end of the 20th century have affected the phenology [timing of seasonal activities] of organisms, the range and distribution of species, and the composition and dynamics of communities."
Earth Alert reports that NASA scientists found (as reported for the 1983 ENSO event) that El Nino slowed the planet's rotation by as much as 0.06 milliseconds on 5 February but the planet is picking up speed and days are now only 0.94 milliseconds longer.--
This has had an awful lot to do with much of the strange weather occurrences. It doesn't seem significant, but reality is that the winds generated by El Nino in 1997 were so strong that it literally redirected the jet stream.
Science is looking, (predicting,) another, equal to, or worse for this year beginning in May.
I've been wondering how they'll pin the evacuation of the American Southwest (Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, etc) in the 400s on those who live in the 2000s.
I also remember when I was in high school in the 1960s we were taught that we'd just come out of an ice age. The environmental breastbeaters and lawmakers of today must have been the "dumb kids in the back of the room".
His global warming models left 75% of the earth out of the equation!
And further on models, if their ability is to be believed, please explain to us why when they are feed KNOWN data from past years weather they are not able to produce results that are close to what happened?
"Based on data available at the time of this report, the global average land and ocean temperature for boreal winter (December-February) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 1880-2001 mean, the second warmest winter season on record."
Confusing, isn't it?
It's MIGRATE stupid, not EXPAND.
Anyways, does this mean that WARMING IS BAD?
And, if so, does this also mean that COOLING IS GOOD?
Because if both WARMING and COOLING are bad and the only thing we should be happy with is exactly the kind of weather we are having now, than, it will always be bad. There's no way the climate can remain stationary.
You're right about the warming, but I don't see where you get the cooling.
These handwringers look to be building on Mann's "hockey stick" graph. Mann's tree ring approach, however, manages to completely miss historic events like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. (Which is especilly odd when one considers that Mann's sample is limited to the northern hemisphere where these events were particularly pronounced!) It's simply not a valid way to measure global climate.
You mean like this?
Forcings and Chaos in Global Climate Change
Read it and see if you think the models can't reproduce the past accurately.
Update: read this:
It's quite good.
And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
No. The Kyoto Treaty is essentially useless. I favor James Hansen's Alternative Scenario, which advocates better controls on methane and black soot emissions (the latter would also aid health concerns in nations like India and China), and which expects CO2 emissions reductions via technological advances.
Not to worry, if it does warm up a little bit we can send ya'll some mesquite trees for your new climate.
Strange that you should mention that. On Monday night at 8:00pm Eastern time, the Discovery channel ran a program titled "Dangers of the Ice Age". It concerned the notion that - and I am summarizing the progam here; these are most emphatically not my opinions or beliefs - global warming caused by Evil Western Civilization was accelerating the onset of the next Ice Age!
As near as I could tell (the whole program was heavily slanted, completely one-sided and almost devoid of analytical reasoning), the latest theory goes something like this: Global Warming caused by Evil Western Civilization is leading to increased melting and run-off of water from the Greenland ice-cap. This, in turn, will eventually - in about 200 years from now - cause the great oceanic current that warms the Northern Atlantic ocean, Western Europe and Scandinavia to stop flowing. The ice will then return over the following 100 years or so.
There was also a side-riff that Evil Human Invaders had caused (as opposed to merely catalyzing) the extinction of the large fauna that had inhabited the North American continent prior to about 12000 years ago.
The main subtext of the program, of course, was that unless the whole world enacts the Glorious Kyoto Treaty at once, We Are All Gonna Die! And it will all be the fault of those Evil Capitalist Moneygrubbing Filthy-Rich Americans!
In other words, now that Human-induced Global Warming is being revealed as a hoax, Global Cooling is indeed making a comeback among those who embrace environazi Luddism.
.59C = 33F
1.06F = -17.2C
Try and engage your brain before offering an inane opinion.
---max
Try and engage your brain before offering an inane opinion.
---max
His models include the oceans now; check the reference I provided.
And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
We can only compare to what we have available. Most of the "warmest on record" reports refer to an existing compilation of weather station records.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
Yeah, but he keeps trying:
Trends of Measured Climate Forcing Agents
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
A recent National Academy of Sciences report (2000) indicated that both trends are probably valid, and that the discrepancy arises from an overestimation of the ability of convective processes to transfer heat from the surface to the mid-troposphere. Because the stratosphere is cooled (or warmed) radiatively and not convectively, data from the same satellites shows a pronounced stratospheric cooling trend -- exactly what would be expected if longwave radiation is being trapped at the surface and prevented from radiating back to space. The observation of stratospheric cooling is one of the strongest validations of the surface warming record. And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
Whereas I, having read a lot of material and having tried to balance both the left and right, have concluded that there are these points of general agreement:
1. The warming that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century, about 1/3 of the total warming observed for the century, was likely due to an increase in solar radiation.
2. The remaining warming signal is most reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas forcing.
3. The likeliest range of warming for the next century is 1.5-2.5 degrees Centigrade. The IPCC upper bounds (4-5.8 C) are not supported by data or modeling.
4. The maximum effect and least economically disadvantageous program to address global warming would improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use and also seek to control methane, remaining CFC sources, and black soot aerosols. The latter of these three should be sold to Third World nations such as India and China on the basis of the improved pulmonary health benefits.
I.e. a change of 0.6 C corresponds to a change of about 1 degree F.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.