Trend or Anomaly: what do extreme summer weather and shark sightings mean?

It's too hot and sticky to write tonight. Here in Southern California, I'm tempted to draw a lukewarm bath and settle in to get some long-postponed reading done. While the east coast deals with the effects of a rare earthquake and Hurricane Irene as it slowly loses power but relentlessly churns its way along the eastern seaboard, the west coast is beset with high heat and humidity - up to 112 degrees in the northern inland valleys and the strong possibility of thunderstorms in the mountains, thanks to moisture drawn up from the south - which can bring the dual risks of flash floods or brush/forest fires.

Add to that, beach goers in Mission Beach, San Diego who hoped to cool off in the ocean have been forced out of the water due to sightings of a large shark cruising the area. Lifeguards twice closed the beaches at Belmont Park when a reported 14-foot shark was spotted, but the park is currently re-opened.

It's at times like these that thoughts of apocalyptic weather, global warming in high gear, and "summer of the shark" descriptors get bandied about and, to a degree, it's understandable. It's human nature and it can be heightened by a feedback loop with the help of the media. After all, in today's crowded information age, the media relies on our emotional hot buttons to catch our attention which, in turn, furthers the public frenzy and round and round it goes.

This isn't meant to diminish the importance of the damage being wrought by Hurricane Irene. While it has lost some of its clout and could even be downgraded to a tropical storm if it continues to lose energy as it makes landfall, it still has delivered high winds, considerable rain, and the threat of high water storm surge which can produce considerable flooding in low-lying coastal areas. And there is the tragedy of at least 6 deaths being attributed to the storm so far.

But scientists will tell you to take a deep breath before attributing our severe weather to global warming. The computer models are definitely there that will show that as the climate changes, so do weather patterns and one of the anticipated outcomes of warming temperatures will be more severe weather, including tropical storms and hurricanes. And there is plenty of historical evidence to show that temperatures are up and we are on that path. As an advocate of climate change, I do not dispute the scientific evidence but the experts will tell you that one extreme summer does not a trend make. At least not yet.

At the same time, one does not want to end up being one of those who ignored the boy who cried wolf until you wake up and find the big hairy brute on your doorstep. So, I wait to hear what the climatologists will have to say and take heart that if a definitive trend does take time, it means we have a window of opportunity to act now and do something about it before it becomes insurmountable.

With regards to recent shark sightings both here and off the coast of Massachusetts, these both could be, like the weather, statistical anomalies. It's certainly not unusual to have large sharks - typically great whites - cruising the California coast. Juveniles feed here and there can be lone adults looking to feed on seals or sea lions while others stick to the siren calls of migration - for San Diego, adults are often running south this time of year to Isla Guadalupe off Baja, Mexico.

As a shark advocate, my initial reaction to calls for a "summer of the sharks" or the media's use of the well-worn term "shark-infested waters" is one of "wouldn't that be nice." If the statistics were to support those labels that would mean that sharks as an ocean species are making a comeback from years of extreme decline due to overfishing. For me, that's a comforting thought, but let's see how the numbers play out over time. In the meantime, as with my optimism regarding taking action to minimize climate change, I will continue to support efforts to protect and conserve are toothy oceanic friends.

So, while my knee jerk reaction will continue to be, "geez louise, this has got to be the hottest ever," I'll try to take that deep breath and see what the trend analysis shows - while I crack open another Diet Coke and settle into the tub.

Global Climate Change: a new book sorts out the facts and the myths and rebuttals

As a follow up to my recent post noting the article on climate change written by Vice President Al Gore and appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, Southern Fried Science has an interesting review of a new book by oceanographer Orrin Pilkey and his son, Keith Pilkey: Global Climate Change, A Primer.

For those who may feel a bit overwhelmed (and it's easy to do) by the many issues and environmental impacts that fall under the heading of climate change, this book addresses them one by one. Of particular note, according to Andrew of Southern Fried Science, is that the book also addresses the many arguments used by those who choose to deny that climate change or global warming actually exists or that, if it does, that it is fueled by human activities.

A Primer for Climate Change

By Southern Fried Scientist, on July 24th, 2011

Sea level rise. Desertification. Ocean acidification. Climategate. Permafrost. Greenland ice sheet. Hockey stick. The language of global climate change can be overwhelming. Every year, as we learn more about the ways that human activity fundamentally alter global processes, the subject becomes even broader and more complicated. Fortunately, world renowned oceanographer Orrin Pilkey and his son, Keith Pilkey, have produced a comprehensive and readable primer on global climate change. The strength of Global Climate Change: A Primer can be broken into three sections – the content, the conflict, and the illustrations.

The Content

The Pilkies are excellent writers and do an impressive, thorough job covering most of the issues involved in global climate change. The target audience for this book is the general public, so the style is heavy on anecdotes and light on dense jargon. While they touch on most of the aspects of climate change, some of sections are weaker than others. Pilkey the senior is an accomplished oceanographer who works on barrier island, so the sections on ocean acidification, sea level rise, and changes in coastal processes are, almost necessarily, the strongest and most compelling.

That doesn’t mean that other topics are short changed. For a 120 page book, the breadth of subject matter is impressive. Anyone interested in examining a specific climate change topic would do well to start with this primer.

One thing that is lacking is an accessible bibliography. The standard bibliography is an excellent collection of sources, but it is difficult to link the references with the text. A thorough collection of end notes, connecting each page to the references mentioned would make it easier for the reader to track down the primary sources.

The Conflict

Complementing the discussion of the causes and effects of global climate change are frank and thoughtful responses to the misconceptions, myths, and outright deceptions common to the climate change denial movement. Each chapter ends with a “myths” section that takes a firm look at the claims made by climate change deniers and thoroughly debunks them. Every claim I’ve heard in recent years is in this book and critically addressed.

Two chapters are entirely dedicated to the manufacture of doubt. These two chapters really shine as new and important contributions to the climate change literature. Climategate, the leaking of several thousand e-mails which, though it revealed absolutely nothing, became a lightning rod for the denialist industry (and I do mean industry, as they painstakingly lay out the funding sources and motives behind the major political and corporate players who are manufacturing climate change dissent). To paraphrase Senator Inhofe, the myth that human activities haven’t led to measurable and significant changes to the natural systems governing the earth’s climate is the real “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

But Pilkey and Pilkey don’t just pick on the low hanging fruits of climate change deniers. They also address some of the misconceptions that have promulgated through the climate change community, explain some of the issues with mathematical models, and discuss the detrimental results of “bandwagon” and “state-of-siege” effects.

These chapters could best be summed up with a quote from Elizabeth Kolbert:

“No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax.”

Illustrations

It is weird to refer to the illustrations in a book about climate change as beautiful, but that’s the only way to describe the batiks by Mary Edna Fraser. In the most dramatic departure from traditional popular science literature, Pilkey and Pilkey eschew diagrams and photographs common to the style and illustrate the book with luscious, vibrant silk printings of landscapes and seascapes that evoke the central topics of the book with devastating effect. While a book founded in science, by nature, adheres to data and dry analysis, the illustrations appeal to the readers’ emotions, creating a global sense of place that cannot be captured in figures and photographs.

As an introductory book on global climate change, this is by far the best I’ve found. It’s ideal for the non-specialist who wants to learn more about the issues and get an appreciation for how far out to lunch the denial lobby is. This illustrations alone are worth the price. Also of note is the final chapter on geoengineering, which proposes some possible solutions to the the current problem, adding some hope to an otherwise doom-and-gloom subject.

Rising Sea Levels: some nations are already seeing waters at their doorstep

Human populations have an economic attraction to the water. Whether it be oceans, lakes, or rivers - these bodies of water can prove to be effective points of transportation, and that leads to trade and commerce. Just look at the location of many of the major cities worldwide and you will typically find a water connection.

So, with the slow but study increase in sea level being brought about by climate change, particularly the effects of global warming on the Arctic and Antarctic regions, there are some very serious economic and socio-political issues that will be brought to the forefront in the next couple of decades.

Tropical regions, like the low-lying Maldives, are having to wrestle with the reality of someday being totally submerged - it's people becoming immigrants from a nation that literally no longer exists. But rising seas levels will impact more than a handful of tropical islands. As reported in the May issue of National Geographic, the heavily populated nation of Bangladesh is already feeling the effects of rising sea levels with high tides that are now bringing a foot of water into coastal homes, rising levels of salinity which impact aquifers, and river flooding becoming more destructive (three major rivers come together in Bangladesh to form the Ganges River Delta).

Bangladesh is a country with one of the highest population densities - more than half of its 164 million population live in an area smaller than the US state of Utah. As sea levels continue to rise, where these people are supposed to go and what economic infrastructure can travel with them is a big question. And if they are forced to immigrate, in that particular part of the world, who is prepared to take them in?

But rising sea levels is not an issue confined to lower income or developing nations. Major cities like Miami and New York would also have to contend with this problem. Would they need to prepare themselves, like New Orleans, with dikes and levies? We have seen the impact of walls that fail with the destruction in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. What will it take to protect a city like London when the Thames River overflows its banks, which some have predicted as early as 2025?
Within the scientific community, the vast majority do not dispute the reality of climate change and the impact of global warming. International organizations like the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are wrestling with the social, political, and economic implications. Perhaps it will be those issues, more so than purely environmental implications, that will drive nations to take action. The challenge is that it is an insidious, incremental, and long-term threat. Cities won't be swallowed up whole immediately and, as a species, we seem to react better to immediate threats. But if we wait until water floods Piccadilly or we find ourselves rowing a canoe to work in Times Square, it may very well be too late.

Tinkering with Geoengineering: more consideration as scientists seek answers to climate change

Geoengineering is in the news again. USA Today ran an article that summarized some of the latest proposed geoengineering concepts. Each appears to have its pros and cons - like the side effects of any medication - but with scientists continuing to document the impact of CO2 emissions and the overall climate change effect it produces, geoengineering is getting more and more attention as a concept that must be seriously considered now rather than later.

RTSea Blog ran two posts on the subject in 2009, and the concerns over the side effects of geoengineering expressed then by scientists still exist today.

• Geoengineering: big ideas to change the planet
• Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Says Scott Barrett, environmental economist, "We're moving into a different kind of world. Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity."

Geoengineering is the process where global steps are taken to counter the effects of global warming, as opposed to addressing the source of the problem - like treating a disease symptomatically. It has been said that geoengineering is not the "silver bullet" solution but may have to be considered along with other measures aimed at the root of our global warming problem, that of excessive CO2 emissions (which, ironically, is a geoengineering process unto itself).

Many of the proposals seem petty grandiose or something right out of a science fiction novel but, in most cases, the technology is there; it will need international cooperation to ramp it up to a global scale. Here are a few of the latest proposed techniques listed by USA Today:

•Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials. [Also mentioned in my prior posts.]

•Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

•Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed.

•Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes. [Also mentioned in my prior posts]

•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees.

Just as CO2 emissions and rising overall world temperatures disrupt currents, winds and other weather patterns, thereby producing more storms, droughts, and even cold spells in some parts of the world; counteracting global warming through geoengineering can do the same. In fact, it can have political or national security implications: what if one nation has the means to manipulate geoengineering so that it could produce droughts or alter storm tracks in another part of the world? Now there's something that seems right out of a DC/Marvel comic book.

While "most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," according to an August Congressional Research Service report, geoengineering is slowly gaining acceptance as a viable approach worth pursuing. "I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."

Read the article in USA Today.

Coral Reef News: a new algae threat; island nations take steps

Coral reefs continue to face challenges and occasional glimmers of hope. But they lead a perilous existence, with these important tropical marine ecosystems living on the edge of collapse. As remnants of geological island movements, coral reefs form important barriers to island erosion and other weather- and ocean-related conditions (storms, currents, etc.) while also providing a home for countless numbers of marine species.

Bad News: Toxic Algae Acts Quickly
On the down side, researchers are discovering that algae can not only crowd out corals when their growth explodes due to nitrate-rich pollution (as previously studied worldwide), but algae blooms can also prove to be toxic by reducing oxygen and sunlight. And it can happen with remarkable speed.

Recently, in the Gulf of Oman, scientists were conducting a coral reef study and upon returning to their research area three weeks after an algae bloom, they found the corals seriously impacted. Several species of hard corals, including cauliflower and tabletop hard corals, were completely destroyed.

"We were surprised at the extent and speed at which changes to the coral reef communities were affected," said marine ecologist Andrew Bauman in the BBC News. Scientists have known that climate change in the form of warmer waters can adversely affect the coral, causing "coral bleaching" whereby the coral is severely and often fatally weakened from the loss of the symbiotic zooxanthellae algae that literally lives in the coral tissue.

While warmer temperatures can stress the corals to the extant that coral bleaching occurs, the scientists in the Gulf of Oman now have dramatic evidence of the impact of algae blooms in open water, literally choking the life from the coral - not to mention the impact on other sealife including fish, whose gills can be become clogged with algae particulates.

Good News: Island Nations Work Together
On the more positive side, tropical island nations are becoming more proactive in their efforts to protect their national treasures - the coral reefs. In 2007, the governments of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands formed the Coral Triangle Initiative to establish policies to protect their marine reef ecosystems. Realizing the importance of the reef ecosystem not only as a component of a healthy ocean but also of economic importance as a source of food and tourism for developing nations, the Coral Triangle Initiative is a government-led program supported by leading conservation organizations like Conservation International.

In the Indian Ocean, the Maldives - a nation of over 1,100 coral islands - recognizes the economic power of conserving its surrounding coral reefs. The reefs are the lure to worldwide scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers, making tourism a major component of the nation's economy. In addition, the need to protect its ecology - in fact, that of the world - is of critical importance to the Maldives. The islands are, at most, just under five feet above sea level. With sea levels rising due to global warming, scientists estimate that the Maldives will be uninhabitable by 2100.

The government has taken steps to both protect its citizens and the environment by instituting a variety of eco-friendly policies including installation of wind turbines, rooftop solar arrays, and phasing out fossil fuel-burning boats and cars. In July, 2010, they also outlawed shark fishing and the sale or export of shark fins. But the government is also reluctantly prudent and developing plans for the relocation of its entire population of 400,000 as sea levels rise.

Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed warned, “Climate change is a global emergency. The world is in danger of going into cardiac arrest, yet we behave as if we've caught a common cold. Today, the Maldives has announced plans to become the world's most eco-friendly country. I can only hope other nations follow suit.”

Read about toxic algae in the BBC Earth News.
Read about the Coral Triangle Initiative at Conservation International.
Read about the Maldives at Mother Nature Network.

10/10/10 Global Work Party: this Sunday's international event for climate change awareness

350. This is a number that has great significance with many climatologists and supporters of positive steps to slow down, if not arrest. global warming. The number 350 stands for the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, in parts per million, that many scientists believe must be attained if we are to have any control over the issue of climate change - and it needs to be reached sooner than later (we currently stand at around 390ppm and rising).

To help get that message out, to policymakers and the general public, is the mission of 350.org. And to do that, 350.org has in the past staged worldwide events that included everyone from children to students to politicians. Last year they held an International Day of Climate Action that encouraged people of all ages to recognize the need to reduce carbon emissions. It was a grass roots event that saw participation from Sydney to San Francisco, from South Africa to Sweden.

Coming up this Sunday, October 10th, will be the organization's 10/10/10 Global Work Party: A Day to Celebrate Climate Solutions. Once again, across the globe, 350.org has rallied folks at the grass roots level in over 150 countries with thousands of local events taking place, all designed to not only bring awareness to the problem of carbon emissions but to also promote what we can do about it.

According to 350.org, "We’re calling it a Global Work Party, with emphasis on both 'work' and 'party'. In Auckland, New Zealand, they’re having a giant bike fix-up day, to get every bicycle in the city back on the road. In the Maldives, they’re putting up solar panels on the President’s office. In Kampala, Uganda, they're going to plant thousands of trees, and in Bolivia they’re installing solar stoves for a massive carbon neutral picnic."

350.org's goal with this one-day event is not to solve the issue of climate change in one grand sweeping gesture - they are too pragmatic for that. Instead, 10/10/10 Global Work Party is designed to send a strong political message to the decision-makers of the world, that people recognize the importance of managing carbon emissions in a demonstrable way and are prepared to do what it takes.

"On 10/10/10 we'll show that we the people can do this--but we need bold energy policies from our political leaders to do it on a scale that truly matters. The goal of the day is not to solve the climate crisis one project at a time, but to send a pointed political message: if we can get to work, you can get to work too--on the legislation and the treaties that will make all our work easier in the long run."

350 parts per million. This is something that needs to be much more than a long-range, near-mythical goal for the world's energy policies. It is a very real objective that must be met quickly, before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

10/10/10. More than just a clever twist of the calendar; it's a day to show your support. Check out the 350.org website to see what events are taking place in your area. There's even still time to start an event of your own for this Sunday.

Visit the 350.org website.
Learn more about 10/10/10 Global Work Party.

The Complexities of Climate Change: ongoing studies to determine mankind's impact

The complexity of global warming and its effects are highlighted in journal articles cited by SeaWeb in its latest Marine Science Review (issue #359). The challenge to scientists in determining the long-term effects is how best to correlate a myriad of artificially introduced components that can either increase or even decrease atmospheric and ocean temperatures.

A study in Nature Geoscience examines the complexities behind the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) which begins in the tropical Pacific but whose effects extend worldwide. Predicting the frequency and extant of this oscillation has been a challenge even in the best (aka "al naturale") of circumstances. By interjecting man-made factors, the predictability becomes even more difficult. But it is clear that a strong ENSO raises temperatures along the equator, changing wind patterns that impact temperature gradients between surface and deep water layers both at the equator and beyond.

Another study in Nature Geoscience examined issues related to atmospheric aerosols - particles and gases in the atmosphere that have the ability to actually lower temperatures (an extreme example of this would be the extended "winter" that doomed the dinosaurs brought on by ejecta from a meteorite impact). With man-made pollutants, like smog, sometimes both effects - heating and cooling - are at work due to the nature of what is being thrown into the air. This can make it challenging for scientists to determine the end net result and for those who have proposed the use of man-made atmospheric aerosols to moderate temperature, called radiation management, the results are questionable. One fact is known: atmospheric aerosols ultimately weaken the ozone layer, as we had over the Arctic, which increases temperatures.

There were two studies in Toxicon that examined the increase of Ciguatera, a fish poisoning that occurs with the ingestion of algal toxins. As it works its way up the food chain, the effect accumulates and becomes magnified. Human consumption of infected fish can produce some nasty gastrointestinal and even neurological effects. One study, focused on the Caribbean, and showed that the incidence of ciguatera was highest where high and relatively consistent sea surface temperatures (SST) occurred. In contrast, another study in the South Pacific showed that there is a temperature threshold over which ciguatera prevalence is dampened, but determining where and when this dampening effect occurs is challenging due to the oscillation of ocean currents in the area.

And lastly, a study in Climate Policy reminded us all of where the impacts of climate change will fall on human populations. Equatorial, developing countries - in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Latin America, and small island states - will feel the greatest effects, affecting subsistence-level economies. And this will have to be taken into consideration when establishing international policies. The industrial world, existing in colder latitudes, has produced over 66% of the global greenhouse gases, but its equatorial neighbors will experience over 75% of the effects within this century.

Climate ecology, like many of the natural forces from evolution to the birth of the universe, is an incredibly complex system unto itself. This makes the study and outcomes of man-made intrusions a very difficult one to forecast. But there is no doubt that mankind is having an impact. I receive 20 to 30 summaries on climate change studies each month from SeaWeb - the data is there, the research is ongoing, and the reality of climate change should be a worldwide concern.

Disease Growth: as we alter the environment, watch out for the microbes

Increased levels of CO2 emissions, ocean acidification, melting polar ice - these are some of the major impacts of global warming, ones that have been brought up time and time again to warn us all of worldwide changes that need immediate corrective measures. But there are some very subtle changes also occurring; subtle and yet, if ignored, capable of delivering a measurable blow to terrestrial and marine life alike.

A recently published study highlighted one such change: expansion of fungal-based diseases in mammals. Now I know this sounds pretty obscure at first read and it certainly doesn't appear to have the attention-grabbing sensationalism of rising sea levels and increased hurricanes or tornadoes, but it does represent a real threat to many species including man.

Fungi can be a major pathogen for diseases in plants, insects, and amphibians. It does not usually pose a threat to mammals because of the complex immune systems and higher body temperature that all mammals regulate. In fact, in humans, fungi-borne diseases were not an issue until the late 20th century as a consequence of impaired immunity through medical intervention or HIV infection (in tropical Africa, there is a higher incidence of fungi-transmitted pathogens among AIDS patients because the warmer climate generates a greater variety of fungal carriers).

But the temperature gradient between most of the environment and a mammal's internal temperature acts as a protective barrier. With global warming that could all change. In the study by Monica Garcia-Solache and Arturo Casadevall in mBio magazine, the authors hypothesize that global warming will increase the geographical range of many fungi species and that these unique multi-celled organisms also have the potential for developing higher temperature tolerances, thereby thinning out the protective temperature gradient barrier between themselves and mammals.

And while we're on the subject of man-made environmental changes and disease, scientists are also looking at the ramifications to the environment from the use of phosphorous and nitrogen. There is a proper, ecologically-balanced level for these nutrients, but when it is artificially thrown out of whack, through fertilizing or waste pollution as examples, then the potential for emerging pathogens and/or diseases - including the West Nile virus, malaria, harmful algal blooms, coral reef diseases, and amphibian malformations - is magnified.

In a study published in Ecological Applications (Pieter T.J. Johnson, et al), the authors suggest that, "Interactions between nutrient enrichment and disease will become increasingly important in tropical and subtropical regions, where forecasted increases in nutrient application will occur in an environment rich with infections pathogens." They emphasize the importance of careful disease management in conjunction with anticipated continued global nutrient enrichment.

As we tamper with the earth, watch out for the big changes - but keep an eye on the little guys too.

Arctic Sea Ice: researchers prepare to monitor 2010 summer levels

We're in June now, so it's time to dig out the sun tan lotion and down parkas, right? What, no? Well, as described by ScienceNews, "While most folks are breaking out their shorts and swimsuits for a summer of play, some researchers are packing warm-weather gear for a much colder trip — to Arctic ice."

This is the time of year when Arctic researchers prepare to monitor and measure the summer sea ice, which has been in steady decline for several decades. Scientists generally agree that climate change, in the form of increasing temperatures in both the air and water, is slowly depleting the Arctic region of its year-round sheet of sea ice. The sea ice is an undulating mass that grows in the winter and shrinks in the summer, but overall, the sea ice is shrinking. The white ice normally reflects sunlight but with an increase in overall temperatures, the ice melts and exposes more dark sea water, which absorbs heat. This "feedback loop" aggravates and accelerates the problem.

In 2007, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center recorded the lowest level of summer sea ice in recorded history. But on a year-by-year basis trends can sometimes be difficult to detect. In the subsequent 2 years, late summer weather changes produced more sea ice than the record low of 2007. But each year has still been below the mean average and the trend is still moving downward.

According to SEARCH (Study of Environmental Arctic Change), "In fall of 2009, the area of second-year sea ice [ice that has remained from one season to the next] has increased relative to 2007 and 2008. However, the arctic ice pack remains substantially younger, thinner, and more mobile than prior to 2005. The long-term trend in summer sea ice extent is still downward. Furthermore, the rate of refreezing at the end of October is less than in 2007."

As of right now, the sea ice level for May was close to the lowest ever recorded for that time of year. But scientists will be monitoring it closely and if any months experience an extended cold snap, the summer sea ice could put up a fight to stay around.

But the big picture still remains unchanged - a steady decline that is a "canary in the coalmine" indication that climate change is real and has been unusually rapid - more so than can be attributed to a natural cyclical pattern.

Read ScienceNews article.

Leaving a Good Legacy: authors say combating climate change should appeal to conservatives

I was reading an interesting editorial in the latest issue of TIME, Leaving a Good Legacy, written by William Antholis and Strobe Talbott, about the ethical case for combating climate change and how it should appeal to conservatives.

What, you say? Conservatives combating climate change - how could this be? Well, on the face of it, it would seem a stretch in this world of polarizing politics where so-called "liberals" are the ones dedicating themselves to the environment and "conservatives" are dedicated to ravaging it for profit. And there would certainly be some truth in that, particularly based on the shrill comments from the extreme ends of both parties.

But Antholis and Talbott make an argument that taking on climate change and preserving the environment are actually conservative values at heart. Recognizing that government and society are part of a legacy to future generations and that what debts we incur on our way of life should be paid within our own time and not placed on future generations - these are actually prudent fundamentals exposed by founding conservatives throughout history.

Perhaps, in the U.S., the conservative movement, personified by the Republican party, has focused its aim to conserve on merely maintaining the status quo and conserving financial assets - wealth. But, as Antholis and Talbott point out, there are some in the party who recognize where the future of their party lies: with a generation that is keenly aware of environmental issues and the kind of world they face if those issues aren't addressed. U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is supporting new energy legislation, working with Senators John Kerry (Democrat) and Joe Lieberman (Independent), that addresses job growth in the alternative energy sector which would have a positive impact on the fight against global warming.

"Surprisingly, perhaps, it is Graham who has been most forceful in making the case for effective steps to counter climate change. 'I have been to enough college campuses to know — if you are 30 or younger, this climate issue is not a debate,' he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in February. 'It's a value ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them.'"

The Gulf oil spill is a consequence of our dependence on fossil fuels, one that is staring us in the face right now and whose effects will linger for decades. Global warming is also a consequence of fossil fuels, with effects that can be more far-reaching on many generations to come. If a true conservative is prudent, responsible, and less inclined toward excess, then the ramifications of our dependence on fossil fuels and what we are saddling future generations with, regarding the air we breathe and the water we drink, should be of major concern. In an ideal world, the environment should be a common cause for all politicians because it speaks to our living legacy to those who will have to carry on with what we did or did not do.

"We come into this world in debt to our ancestors, and we leave it an incrementally better place, believing our descendants will come up with means of fending off or coping with whatever their age throws at them," writes Antholis and Talbott. "Down through the years, that has been the narrative of the human family. But global warming alters it in a basic way. We cannot leave those who come after us to their own devices. If we do not get the process of mitigating climate change started right now, our descendants, however skilled, will not be able to cope with the consequences. If we do nothing, we will likely bequeath to them a less habitable — perhaps even uninhabitable — planet, the most negative legacy imaginable. That is why there is no time to lose."

Read entire editorial in TIME.
Antholis and Talbott are authors of Fast Forward: Ethics and Politics in the Age of Global Warming.

Losing the Lizards: study indicates climate change can lead to global extinctions

According to a new study published last week in Science Magazine, lizards are at a high risk of extinction due to climate change. With rising temperatures, they will spend more time seeking shade and less time feeding and breeding to perpetuate the species.

Researcher Barry Sinervo of the University of Santa Cruz and his colleagues compiled data that included local population extinctions to date, climate temperature changes, and the known temperature ranges or requirements of lizard species to construct predictive models.

The research study indicates that, since 1975, local population extinctions had reached 4% worldwide and that global extinction of entire species could reach 20% by 2080 based on current rates of temperature increase.

Ever seen a lizard sunning itself? It's not actually just sunbathing or taking a snooze. As a cold-blooded "ecotherm", it is, in essence, charging its battery so that it can engage in the important activities of foraging for food and breeding. But it does so within a particular range of temperature. And since it can not sweat or pant to cool off, when it becomes too hot it heads for shade or burrows to cool down.

But when lizards are spending more time seeking cooler conditions, they are not engaged in the activities that will guarantee their long-term survival.

"So they don't die directly but they can't reproduce. It only takes a couple of generations of that and the population is going to spiral downward until it goes extinct," says Jack Sites, one of the study's collaborators and a herpetologist from Brigham Young University.

Lizards play an important role in nature's food chain, feeding on insects and being a food source for larger animals like birds. Their loss would definitely have a severe impact on local ecosystems but just how devastating that would be is hard to determine. It is something that scientists, like Sinervo, would prefer not to have to find out.

"The numbers are actually pretty scary. We've got to try to limit climate change impacts right now or we are sending a whole bunch of species into oblivion," Sinervo said.

Read the Science Magazine abstract/article.
Read MNN article about the study.

Warmest March and a Cold Winter: science agencies explain a climate conundrum

This winter's harsh weather has provided fodder for those who debunk the issue of global warming and climate change. In fact, with any brief fluctuation in weather patterns, opponents of climate change jump on the chance to dismiss the big picture climate patterns that are being closely monitored by many scientific and federal agencies. Of course, along with that comes the cries of conspiracies supported by foul-mouth online comments that I won't even bother addressing.

With Washington D.C. experiencing heavy snows recently, climate change critic Sen. James Inhofe and his family constructed an igloo near the US capitol. As reported by Geoff Mohan in the Los Angeles Times, what the senator fails to appreciate is the explanation for this winter's weather given by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (no whacko organization here): Arctic oscillation, a cyclical change in air pressure over the Arctic that alters weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. While this oscillation was somewhat varied over the past century, changing from positive (drier) to negative (colder) phases, since the 1970s it has favored the positive phase. But this year there was a switch to the negative phase.

There will always be climate fluctuations, but one must look towards the larger trends. And that is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), another non-partisan federal agency not prone to exaggeration, did with its just-released Global Climate Analysis for March 2010. Seems last month was, globally, the warmest March on record with the first quarter of the year being the fourth warmest 1st quarter on record. "On record" means going back to 1880.

So often we miss the bigger picture because we get wrapped up in day-to-day events that may actually represent anomalies or minor fluctuations. In essence, we miss the forest for the trees. And despite what might be said about some studies from scientists who may or may not have been wholly accurate with their research, there are plenty of respected agencies and research groups that are reaching and supporting the scientific conclusions that celebrity spokespeople, like Vice President Al Gore, have attempted to bring to the public's attention only to be pilloried as self-serving opportunists.

We miss the forest for the trees. And someday we could miss the forest because there are no trees.

Read the LA Times article.
Read the NOAA report summary.
Read the NSIDC explanation of Arctic oscillation.
View this Nat Geo video on climate change:

Ocean Dead Zones: low oxygen areas are still growing

Ocean researchers and many conservationists have heard of oceanic low-oxygen or "dead zones" wherein large areas of ocean have lower-than-normal levels of oxygen. To a large extent, these areas are normal or somewhat predictable - deepwater and seasonal movements of water; all part of the ocean's normal process of oxygen intake, use, and replenishment.

But there are more and more signs from throughout the world that these dead zones are becoming more frequent and growing in size. From both coasts of Africa, to South America to the Pacific Northwest, dead zones are becoming a real problem, killing off some aquatic species, displacing others, and affecting the ocean's relationship with the atmosphere - a relationship that provides a majority of our breathable air.

A recent article in the online McClatchy newspaper outlines what has been happening in the Pacific Northwest, along the Oregon/Washington coastline. Some scientists believe it's too soon to tell whether the root cause - a warming of the surface waters that acts as a cap to suppress the normal cycle of deepwater to shallow, or upwellings and downwellings - is due to global warming, but it's high on their list of suspects.

Some might think that it's a sign of ocean acidification, but this is a different process taking place here, as well illustrated in the article. However, in any case, the net effect of the coast of Oregon and Washington is tangible, with piles of dead Dungeness crab and 25-year old sea stars littering a sea floor covered with a higher-than-normal bacteria layer.

"Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean. These areas — in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans — appear to be spreading, however, covering more square miles, creeping toward the surface and in some places, such as the Pacific Northwest, encroaching on the continental shelf within sight of the coastline.

'The depletion of oxygen levels in all three oceans is striking,' said Gregory Johnson, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle."

If these low-oxygen zones continue to increase in size and/or frequency, the ocean ecology will have to make adjustments, some that will be severe and that we will feel as they impact commercial fisheries. But scientists are not sure just how far-ranging these changes could be. After all, they have no reference models or examples to turn to - we are heading into unknown territory.

"Scientists are unsure how low oxygen levels will affect the ocean ecosystem. Bottom-dwelling species could be at the greatest risk because they move slowly and might not be able to escape the lower oxygen levels. Most fish can swim out of danger. Some species, however, such as chinook salmon, may have to start swimming at shallower depths than they're used to. Whether the low oxygen zones will change salmon migration routes is unclear.

Some species, such as jellyfish, will like the lower-oxygen water. Jumbo squid, usually found off Mexico and Central America, can survive as oxygen levels decrease and now are found as far north as Alaska."

Read entire McClatchy article.

Clean Air Act: though threatened with restrictions, act has a history of doing good

As you may know from following U.S. news or from past postings in this blog, there is an ongoing political battle over the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its ability to use the Clean Air Act to enforce standards that would require addressing issues regarding climate change and global warming. The previous administration had tried to weaken or limit the application of the Clean Air Act and though some action was taken by the current administration in rolling back those restrictions or limitations, it's not out of the woods yet.

The Center for Biological Diversity is using an email campaign to remind legislators as to the importance of a full and vibrant Clean Air Act by citing not the environmental or ecological implications and impacts, but by putting it in the context of dollars and cents, lost productivity, and increased human health hazard.

"It is directly responsible for saving lives, improving health, and decreasing hospitalizations and lost school and work days. According to the EPA, in 2010 the Clean Air Act will save 23,000 lives and prevent 1.7 million asthma attacks, 4.1 million lost work days, and more than 68,000 hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.

The Clean Air Act saves money and protects our economy. In its first two decades alone, the Act provided pollution reduction benefits 42 times greater than the estimated costs of regulation, including decreased healthcare costs and reduced lost work time worth $22.2 trillion. If implemented by the EPA as required by existing law, the Clean Air Act will produce similar benefits while reducing greenhouse pollutants."

Now, opponents of climate change or those favoring a more limited application of the Clean Air Act might argue with the stats listed above, but it makes for a more politically relevant debate when the impacts in question are immediately personal and not appear, at least to the politician, somewhat esoteric or obscure. Heaven forbid that these impacts might catch the attention of ... of... one of their... voters! Eeeuuuuwh!

Click here to send an email to your legislator.

Coral Under Review: U.S. to determine status of 82 species

Some good news for coral reefs within U.S. territorial waters: the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) will spend the next year conducting an evaluation on the status of 82 different coral species in light of data presented by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). The review will determine the current health of the various corals in Florida, Hawaii, and other island territories. By doing so, the NMFS can ascertain whether any coral species warrant threatened or endangered status under the Endangered Species Act, similar to elkhorn and staghorn coral which are currently listed as threatened.

Corals are the building blocks of tropical reefs but exist within a narrow band of environmental factors. Changes in water temperature, ocean acidification, pollution from commercial development - any one of these can lead to a degradation of the reef, often through a process called "coral bleaching." Unhealthy or dead reefs can be torn down by wave action, and this can have a serious effect on coastline or island erosion - not to mention the disruption to tropical reef ecosystems when corals that provide shelter and food for a variety of aquatic species disappears.

"The status review is an important step forward in protecting coral reefs, which scientists have warned may be the first worldwide ecosystem to collapse due to global warming," said Miyoko Sakashita, lawyer for CBD.

Read Washington Post article.

This Winter's Extreme Weather: climate change defined by macro-weather patterns

With some extreme winter weather taking place in some parts of the world, discussions about global warming would seem to fall on deaf ears. It can be challenging to gain the attention of a U.S. senator regarding warming ocean temperatures when he or she is shoveling several feet of snow to get to the U.S. capitol!

In United States alone, we have had some flip-flopping of "normal" weather patterns: heavy rains in southern California, record snow levels in the northeast, and a cold snap in Florida that has caused the deaths of over 100 manatees and triggered an extensive coral bleaching event. Even with an unusual warm spell in Vancouver, British Columbia as the Winter Olympics are about to begin, it doesn't sound much like global warming, does it?

However, one must look beyond micro-weather patterns and look at the big picture, at annual or decadal trends, and even longer, to determine what is a natural cycle or an anomaly or a man-made trend.

As an example, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently declared 2009 to be the second warmest year on record, next to 2005. This first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest on record, warmer than the previous decade which was the former record holder. With changes in macro-weather patterns over a long period of time, there are disruptions to the typical wind, temperature, and ocean current patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, changing climate conditions are being considered responsible for steadily increasing wave height over the past several decades, posing greater flooding and erosion potential. Ironically, these major weather disruptions can manifest themselves regionally in ways that would seem to run counter to the idea of global warming.

One seasonal weather event that occurs in the Pacific is the El Nino - a change in the usual sea temperature patterns that warms the Pacific and disrupts weather patterns across much of North and South America. Research that has studied the El Nino over several centuries have shown that it has been occurring more frequently, with over 40% of the extreme events taking place in the 20th century, with 30% of those occurring after 1940. There is an El Nino in place right now and is considered the source of much of the current abnormal weather patterns in the North America.

There are some scientists who propose that all of this represents a normal macro-weather pattern, that this is all nature's doing and not man-made. But as research continues, we are beginning to see that the rate of change seems to be much greater than from any other previously recorded or extrapolated natural cycle - another accelerant would appear to be at work here. Hence, the issue of man's impact through CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels.

Opponents of global warming have characterized it in various ways, from a natural-occurring event to a massive global conspiracy by maniacal scientists. While I don't buy into the Machiavellian plots, I would propose that if all the research were to ultimately point to a natural shift, I for one would choose not to simply sit back and enjoy the ride, proclaiming there's nothing we can do and watch ecosystems shift and species (including homo sapiens) disappear in many parts of the world. I just can't sit on my hands.

However, having reviewed the continuing stream of research studies, my inclination is that man-made activities have been the primary cause behind climate change. We did it and we can do something about it.

Read SeaWeb article on recent cold temperatures, El Nino, and northeast Pacific wave height.

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.