Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming

Environmental News Service ^ | 05/16/2002

[cogitator]

Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming

WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2002 (ENS) - Hungry polar bears are one of the early signs that global warming is impacting Arctic habitat, suggests a new study from World Wildlife Fund. The report reviews the threats faced by the world's 22,000 polar bears and highlights growing evidence that human induced climate change is the number one long term threat to the survival of the world's largest land based carnivores.

Global warming threatens to destroy critical polar bear habitat, charges the report, "Polar Bears at Risk." The burning of coal and other fuels emits carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that blanket the earth, trap in heat and cause global warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change in the polar region is expected to be the greatest of anywhere on Earth.

"The WWF report shows that polar bears in Hudson Bay are being impacted by climate change," said Lynn Rosentrater, coauthor of the report and climate scientist at the World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Arctic program. "The polar bear's basis for survival is being threatened by the reduction of the sea ice."

"Since the sea ice is melting earlier in the spring, polar bears move to land earlier without having developed as much fat reserves to survive the ice free season," Rosentrater explained. "They are skinny bears by the end of summer, which in the worst case can affect their ability to reproduce."

Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, and the extent of sea ice has decreased by six percent over the past 20 years. By around 2050, scientists now predict a 60 percent loss of summer sea ice, which would more than double the summer ice free season from 60 to 150 days.

Sea ice is critical to polar bears' survival because it is the platform from where they hunt their primary prey - ringed seals and bearded seals. Diminishing ice cover and longer ice free periods limit the time the bears have on the ice to hunt and means that they have fewer fat resources to survive during the longer summer season.

Lower body weight also reduces female bears' ability to lactate, leading to fewer surviving cubs. Already, fewer than 44 percent of cubs now survive the ice free season.

As early as 1999, Canadian researchers noticed that polar bears in the Hudson Bay region were having trouble finding enough seals to eat due to the earlier breakup of sea ice. The scientists from the Canadian Wildlife Service found that weight for both male and female polar bears was declining, and female bears were having fewer cubs.

The impacts of global warming come on top of problems that polar bears already face from hunting, toxic pollution and oil development in the Arctic. The Arctic region is contaminated by pesticides and other chemicals carried by air and condensation from industrialized areas far to the south.

The pollutants enter the food chain, and animals at the top of the chain, such as polar bears, can carry tremendous body burdens of toxic chemicals. Research on polar bears has shown a link between high contaminant levels and reduced immune system function.

Due to the rapid pace of change in the Arctic, there is no time to lose in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, WWF argues. The group says major reductions can be achieved by using existing technologies to increase the energy efficiency of homes, businesses and automobiles, and by using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.

Bipartisan support has grown in Congress for a renewable portfolio standard that would ensure that 20 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable energy by 2020. However, President George W. Bush has opposed the proposal.

World leaders will discuss a similar proposal at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in South Africa this summer. The WWF is calling on President Bush to support this initiative in Johannesburg.

"Arctic nations that are home to most of the world's polar bears should be leading the charge against global warming," said Jennifer Morgan, director of WWF's climate change program. "Instead, the United States - the world's largest global warming polluter - is essentially ignoring this problem. All eyes will be on President Bush at the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa this August to test his commitment to sustainable energy solutions for climate change."

The WWF has created a new Web site: http://www.panda.org/polarbears with extensive information about polar bears and their Arctic domain. The site includes satellite tracking of two female bears, Louise and Gro, as they roam the ice pack in search of prey.

[cogitator]

Which leads us to one of many fallacies of the GCM theories. Water Vapor is a GHG and a least 2 orders of magnitude more effective than CO2.

That's a known. Earth would be way below freezing if not for water vapor.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain the difference between the GHG H20, and the GHG CO2, that one is called (only by IPCC & their modellers) a "feedback".

I'm not sure. In the message I received from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming. That's all I can say about it -- database is empty beyond that datum.

I know enough to say this: temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, liquid, or solid. Right?

Sounds good, now how does CO2 contribute to temperature increase if it only absorbs and re-radiates quantum 15micron IR radation,(i.e. a delayed spontaneous & random process). Hint, it can't, It must lose the absorbed IR excitation in collisions with other molecules to manifest as a change in temperature(i.e. velocity of molecules).

No doubt about that. Everything I've read about the greenhouse effect says that CO2 and other GHGs "absorb and re-radiate" longwave radiation. Presumably if some of the re-radiated radiation is transferred to other molecules, the atmosphere heats up.

So first you've said that the stratosphere is too thin to absorb radiant energy,

I said that in comparison with the troposphere that is quite true.. Obviously there are molecules in the stratosphere, sparce though they may be compared to the troposphere, and thus can manifest temperature (i.e. molecular motion), black body radiation is radiated consequent to molecular changes in motion. Radiant energy absorption on the otherhand is a quantum process that occurs at very select wavelengths dependent upon the quantum characteristics of the molecules absorbing radiant energy.

That makes more sense. What you said initially didn't make sense to me.

At 15 microns, absorption is 100%, and as Hug & Barret have made clear, that absorption reaches extinction in a very short atmospheric path(<100ft) near the surface of the earth.

I understand that to be the core of their argument, and I did find it curious to read the section you called the "caveat" (one of two reasons that I wanted you to comment on that section). My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause. All I can conclude for the GHG argument is that increasing CO2 by ppm is not a "small amount" of gas. If that was not the case, then there wouldn't be any CO2 greenhouse effect to speak of. Since the IPCC speaks of a CO2 greenhouse effect, I have to draw the conclusion above -- and I can't argue it beyond that. Together we've stated Hug and Barrett vs. the IPCC: we can't push the argument any further. If Hug and Barrett's argument has merit, they'll eventually get more notice. Hug has published (though it's a German journal). If the give-and-take there gets noisy enough, it will get picked up elsewhere.

The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is too thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

The injected aerosols themselves are molecules absorbing solar radiation as well as upwelling blackbody radiation and imparting any absorbed energy to the stratosphere in collisions with upper atmosphere molecules. So where is any inconsistency? Those "volcanic" aerosols are only sporadically part of the picture.

Actually (drum roll) they might end up being a significant influence. Just saw this while looking at new pictures in the NASA Earth Observatory:

STUDY OF DUST IN ICE CORES SHOWS VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS INTERFERE WITH THE EFFECT OF SUNSPOTS ON GLOBAL CLIMATE

Your major contention is still with the CO2 energy absorption.

Have I ever said otherwise? The contention of the IPCC & their modellers is CO2 is the king and driver of the whole show. Which is a blatant fiction.

No, you haven't. But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion that their experimental result doesn't transfer properly to the atmospheric system due to an overlooked dynamic process. And before making a considerable effort to try and convince me (though you can do whatever you want in terms of illustrating the point), I'll tell you that there isn't much more you can say for my thick-headed benefit. I understand Hug and Barrett's point enough to perceive how it conflicts with the standard GHG-induced warming view. I don't think you can provide any material that resolves that conflict.

[ancient_geezer]

(And don't forget to note the source of the last two articles.)

What does an increase in global temperature returning to interglacial norms from the little ice age:

Climate of the last 2400 years

Climate of the last 12,000 years

have to do with the IPCC storylines pushing the anthropogenic CO2 theory for warming at this time?

The point of the two articles from CO2 Science was that global increases in temperature are not caused by CO2 increase, read:

CO2-Temperature Correlations

From the same source.

Yes global temperatures have, and can change, the issue is more about whether or not a substantive or dangerous trend is currently in place and if one is, what if anything other than adaptation is the appropriate response. The evidence dose not support the conclusion of a critical or even marginally non-beneficial trend.

[cogitator]

IPCC is known as much for what it doesn't say and leaves out than what it does.

1) Natural CO2 levels tend to follow, temperature change, they do not lead temperature. (due to release of CO2 from hydrates & dissolved CO2 in the oceans, increasing biomass, etc.) CO2 is an effect of temperature excursions in the atmosphere not a cause of such.

Precisely why it is so difficult to determine the climate response to increasing atmospheric CO2 at the current rate. There are no paleoclimate analogs to this situation. (By the way, I don't know of any significant CO2 hydrates in the ocean, though they can form at depth from injected CO2. Methane hydrates, on the other hand, could be very signifcant.)

2) Much higher global temperatures with lower CO2 concentrations have existed in the past. CO2 concentration is poorly correlated with decadal & century changes in the climate.

Medieval Warm Period, or an earlier and longer epoch?

Merely calling CO2 is a radiative forcing agent in a model does not make it a cause of global temperature change manifested in the physical world.

As I noted earlier, the paleoclimate view of CO2 is a climate "thermostat" (whether or not you like the Gaia viewpoint). CO2 concentrations act to maintain either a warm or cold global climate.

[ancient_geezer]

from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming.

In short he passed off to the IPCC view of water vapor as feedback by selective redefinition so it can be shunted aside as the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. To admit to H20 being a GHG that would be to admit to the inconsequentiality of anthropogenic CO2 as a problem.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

N,o I am saying the stratosphere's composition is such that water vapor is not the dominant factor of longwave absorption that it plays in the troposphere. The IR transmission window is much broader in the stratosphere, with O3 @ 10 & 15u playing the dominant role of any "longwave absorption" on very narrow absorption lines.

CO2 absorption above 11km is virtually nonexistant. H2O absorption is very attenuated. There is virtually no IR absorption by N2 and O2, they absorb UV radiant energy only and aquire heat from kinetic collision with IR active gasses.

But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion

The UN's IPCC and their modellers perhaps? I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the UN sponsored IPCC Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.

ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT:

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

***

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

 

And what did they sign?

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

[ancient_geezer]

As I noted earlier, the paleoclimate view of CO2 is a climate "thermostat" (whether or not you like the Gaia viewpoint). CO2 concentrations act to maintain either a warm or cold global climate.

In comparison to and in the presence of watervapor. It has a negligible role(inspite of The IPCC's redefinitions). I will admit that CO2 has a stonger role in the dry glacial periods where atmospheric H20 concentrations are much lower. The Oceans & ice caps have a much greater effect and capacity to act as a thermal buffer or "thermostat" than any concentration of CO2.

Take away water then you have a Martian or Venesian scenario, but as long as there is substantial open water on this planet, the role of CO2 is consigned to a marginal role at the very most.

[ancient_geezer]

My question when I read that paragraph is: they say the addition of a "small amount of gas" has a negligible effect on net radiative flux at the tropopause.

Certainly depends on what they mean by "small", an increase of 320ppm is no "large" increase in my book, especially in comparison to H20 concentrations that vary from nil to 20000ppm as a matter of natural variation day to day and from geographical area to area, and have a direct impact on how much IR is available for absorption by CO2 as well as the problems associated with the CO2 IR extinction distance of <100ft at ground level.

[Political Junkie Too]

Somehow, I think that the number of blue-haired snowbirds in Miami would be as accurate a measure of global warming as the weight of polar bears is.

-PJ

[ancient_geezer]

P.S.

The problem in not what is small in absolute terms, but what is small when dealing with concentrations where IR absorption is at saturation levels as it is with CO2 & the earth's atmosphere.

At those levels, doublings of concentration do not appreciably change the amount of IR that is absorbed as all the available IR at the nominal wavelength is already absorbed. additional concentration cannot cause an additional effect. The ultimate limiter is the amount of IR available in relation to the limiting concentration of the GHG that causes extinction and the exchange of heat to other molecules kinetically.

In the presense of a gas, such as water vapor, whose IR absorption overlaps critical wavelengths, the issue becomes especially important in determining the actual effect of the minority GHG.

[cogitator]

from James Hansen when I asked the question about positive feedbacks, he said it was due to the increase in the relative humidity of the atmosphere caused by warming.

In short he passed off to the IPCC view of water vapor as feedback by selective redefinition so it can be shunted aside as the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. To admit to H20 being a GHG that would be to admit to the inconsequentiality of anthropogenic CO2 as a problem.

Remember the Earth Observatory article about clouds I offered a couple of days ago? Well, the next one in the series is out. It provides a very clear description of the interaction of CO2 and water vapor. At least for this group, it's pretty obvious that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Does the Earth have an Iris Analog?

In particular, note the paragraphs beginning "Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity..." and "This is a terrifically important feedback," Lindzen concludes..."

So at least for Lindzen, one of the more important skeptical scientists, there's no doubting the importance of the water vapor feedback we've been discussing.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that no atmospheric molecules in the stratosphere can absorb longwave radiation?

No, I am saying the stratosphere's composition is such that water vapor is not the dominant factor of longwave absorption that it plays in the troposphere. The IR transmission window is much broader in the stratosphere, with O3 @ 10 & 15u playing the dominant role of any "longwave absorption" on very narrow absorption lines.

That is MUCH clearer now. Obviously ozone is significant in the stratosphere because ozone depletion is affecting stratospheric temperatures to an extent.

CO2 absorption above 11km is virtually nonexistant. H2O absorption is very attenuated. There is virtually no IR absorption by N2 and O2, they absorb UV radiant energy only and aquire heat from kinetic collision with IR active gasses.

OK. (I want to do a bit of research on this, but not while posting this reply.)

But until somebody reputable in the climate change community stands up and says "Ohmigod, we screwed up -- look at this paper by Hug and Barrett!", I am going to harbor my suspicion

The UN's IPCC and their modellers perhaps? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Not everybody is in the IPCC. What they need is a respected maverick: somebody who is known well enough to be influential, but someone who considers alternatives to the mainstream consensus. Not to drop names, but someone I am aware of who fits this "profile" is Raymond Pierrehumbert.

I'll continue to go along with these folks, until there is a clear and convincing demonstration of the validity the UN sponsored IPCC Global Warming bandwagon. That clear and convincing demonstration answering the counterpoints has yet to surface, and mere academic creditials bolstering yet more words in not going to do it.

Well, in that vein, I emailed Henry Pollack about some outstanding borehole temperature questions that I would like to resolve. Haven't heard back from him yet, but it has only been a day.

[ancient_geezer]

there's no doubting the importance of the water vapor feedback we've been discussing.

LOL, the point I am trying to make, is not that water vapor cannot "act as a feedback", obviously it does in response to solar input through oceans, geological, biomass and anthropogenic mechanisms.

CO2 is added to and subtracted from the atomsphere from oceans, geological, biomass and anthropogenic mechanisms acting as a feedback to solar input in the same manner, though at an attenuated degree in comparison to H20.

The Position of IPCC is that the dominant driver is CO2 and everything else is considered as a source of minimal change(i.e. solar flux) or is a feedback in relation to CO2 forcings. The nonsense of IPCC and the UN agenda is to place CO2 into a politically dominant role and does so by identifying water vapor as a "feedback" redefining it into a secondary role and placing other minority IR active gases as "GHG" to encourage regulation anthropogenic CO2 sources as a political goal.

That IPCC characterisation, which Hansen repeats, is one of many things that I and others take objection to, for that characterisation obscures reality to support a political agenda.

[cogitator]

Just thought you might like to read this:

Glaciers Melting at an Accelerated Pace

[Number_Cruncher]

Please see Fig. 9.1 of the TAR "Climatic interpretation of glacier records", compiled by Oerlemans, University of Utrecht, (Data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service). In nearly all the mountain glacier records, the vast bulk of glacial retreat occurred between 1900 and 1950, and the trends since then are not very clear. Not a very good proof of global warming and glacial retreat.

Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years as the world has emerged from the Little Ice Age.

[cogitator]

Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years as the world has emerged from the Little Ice Age.

The term "accelerated" was used in the article and in the title of the article. Do you agree or disagree with the author's assessments of the recent trends in Alaska?

What TAR are you referring to? IPCC's Third Assessment Report? I would find that surprising.

[Number_Cruncher]

You are missing the point. The figures shows that worldwide the melting of glaciers has decelerated in the last 50 years compared to the previous 50 years. Some glaciers in Alaska may be an exception to this deceleration.

One Alaskan glacier that is surging.

[cogitator]

The figures shows that worldwide the melting of glaciers has decelerated in the last 50 years compared to the previous 50 years.

First of all, was this from the IPCC TAR? What is the period of time the data covers? In an earlier exchange of posts, I noted that one of the articles you cited was for trends through 1993. The importance of the term "acceleration" is that it is being seen now.

Second, I'd like to know how the assessment is being made. The Alaska measurements are one data set. Another data set is in the Himalayas, where glaciers are melting at such a rate that the meltwater lakes below them are posing serious flood hazards.

There are a lot of glaciers in Alaska and the Himalayas. So "overall", where are glaciers not receding as fast?

[Always Right]

cogitator: "I predict that by 2012 a lot of these suggested trends will turn out to have been quite accurate predictors."

Always Right: "Oh please take me up on that. I have at least $10K I would put down against the wacko-environmentalist worst-worst-worst case computer similations being anywhere close to correct."

Considering the whackos were calling for an acceration of global warming and it flattened out, I am thinking I was correct.

Always Right: 1

Consensus of the Greatest Scientists in the world: 0