Dramatic biological responses to global warming in the Arctic

I often see proclamations that global warming is a myth or has been debunked. Often the arguments centre around the fact that there are record breaking cold temperatures in one region or other associated weather events. Local weather is not global climate. One of the effects we do expect to see in a global warming is an increase in extremes as more energy enters the climate system and increases the overall fluctuations in local weather.

However, the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine for the global climate change and there we see undisputable evidence of global warming. Consider the following report from www.physorg.com

The Arctic as we know it may soon be a thing of the past, according to the research of a large, international team led by Eric Post, associate professor of biology at Penn State University. The team carried out ecosystem-wide studies of the biological response to Arctic warming, and documented a wide range of responses by the plants, birds, animals, insects and humans living there.

The author goes on to point out:

The paper by Post's research team shows that the effects of Arctic warming have been dramatic so far, especially since the warming amounts to only about 1-degree Celsius over the last 150 years. Post said it is difficult to predict what will happen with the anticipated 6-degree warming over the next century.

There is not politics involved in this study, no pointing the finger and blaming anyone, just observations on what is happening backed up by solid and objective data. It doesn't matter if the cause of warming is natural or man-made, the point is that it is happening and our contribution to the process may be in dampening or reducing natural ameliorating responses to natural warming cycles.

I seems to me that based on the in increasing evidence for warming, the impact of the phenomenon, such as the effect on low lying coastal regions and long term agricultural production, can be modeled sufficiently to allow us to develop a long term strategy to the situation and not be caught flat footed in the midst of a global famine or epidemic.

2012? bum bum bummmmm

Good luck not getting ignored or the information poo-pooed away.
Dont you know we are afraid of getting taxed more.
Its okay if they give it to the too big to fail though.

Arctic now warmest in 2000 years, researchers say

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by human activities overwhelmed a 21,000-year cycle linked to gradual changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun, an international team of researchers reported on Thursday in the journal Science.

"I think it really underscores how sensitive the Arctic is to climate change ... and it's really the place where you can see first what's happening to the (climate) system and how the rest of the Earth will or might follow," David Schneider, a co-author and a scientist with the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a telephone interview.

We all know how the Science journal lies and the NCAR lies too!
www.reuters.com...

What people don't realize is that if that Ice disappears then we're in a hold world of hurt as a species. Who cares whether it's man-made or not. We're beyond that now. We know that Mother Nature can fix this way better than we can but our continued polluting is affecting her ability to fix the problem.

If that ice melts away then the mass of that ice redistributes around the world. Antarctica isn't melting as fast so most of it's mass will stay in the South Pole. Do you see where I'm going with this? It could cause a planetary wobble and Pole Shift as the mass isn't distributed evenly anymore with the mass of Ice at both poles. Now it is more or less equal. But if the North goes first then we're screwed.

Glad to see you bring this issue up, without saying that it is a money driven scheme, I am so tired of that. It is happening, it has been happening, and yes some people are actually trying to make money off of it but that does not change the fact that global warming is serious and will change the face of this earth forever. IMO it is much too late to slow down the process, if we ever could, and pollution regardless of what role it plays in global warming, should be taken care of. Star and flag!

Explain to me, the weather model that shows the last 7 year decline in average tempature.

One little question?

Cap and Trade is the total control of all aspects of all businesses in the US. Fact, 300+ page dumped at 3 am prior to 10 am vote.

Just 1 aspect-
All houses to be sold will be inspected to ensure they are up to date with California building codes prior to sale. HMMMMMM wonder why this bill has not been discussed on ATS. Any conspiracy their, or is it because our gov is ruthless?

Warmest in 2000 years, and you post it like it is fact.

Deny ignorance, part of the T O C, but hell who cares. Let us just paste and copy whatever we can find. The EPA has been in the enforcement of environmental enforcement for how long? A mountain of ash from a coal plant that produces electricity flooded 1000's of acres of land in Tennesee will cause no problems according to the EPA. But idiots will keep thinking the government gives a RATS ASS about the public.

#ing sheeple should be shot and hung on the wall.

Dem=Repub
Obama=Bush

Prove me wrong, name one law Obama has repealed, name one policy he has changed.

reply to post by endisnighe

It sounds like you are responding to my post however you must not know how to reply properly. What was that about ignorance?
Since this is all speculation and you can sure use your own mind to decide,
why do you take it so hard? Are you a skeptic AND a scientist?
Why do you diss on the messenger, are you being paid to?
And what are you even saying about obama?
Are you sure you're even on the right thread?
I posted the link and quotes for the threads sake.
If you dont beleive it, who the h cares, don't read it.
What, do you live in the arctic?
BTW, that was sent to me by a good friend I trust,
I didnt just "find it and post it from somewhere".
If you noticed I highlighted the word MIGHT in the quote.
At least I posted something beside a rant.
You are right though, the bailouts should be proof of who the
gubmint gives a rats a** about....

Told you OP. Didnt take long, did it!


[edit on 13-9-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by endisnighe


Man who peed in your cornflakes?

This thread is for information and enlightenment, not to come on with total disgust at a subject and flame. I hate every 911 thread I see on here, but do I go there and flame? No. I have commented, posted opinons based on my own research, and then allow the posters to engage in debate. You my dear are rude. T and C indeed!

Let's start with the warming Arctic.

A quick Google landed several hits mentioning an increase in Arctic temperatures. It also landed several hits mentioning a decrease in Arctic temperatures. If one looks more closely at the actual data, one will see that certain areas are increasing in average temperature, while others are not. The temperature anomalies are location-specific, and while widespread, do not include the entire Arctic.

The general 'consensus' among those who proclaim that the Arctic is warming is that CO2 levels are increasing the amount of heat in the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation and radiating it as heat. CO2 does have this property. It will, on average, absorb and re-emit light as heat amounting to 16% of the available sunlight hitting it.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, amounting to approximately 378 ppmv (parts per million by volume)[1]. That means the atmosphere is 0.0378% CO2 on average at present. Taking this into account, the total amount of solar radiation that CO2 is responsible for absorbing and re-emitting as heat is 0.000378 x 0.16 = 0.00006048 or 0.006048%.

The atmosphere is about 17.25x10^12 cubic kilometers (17.25x10^21 m^3)[2]. It has a density of 1.2 kg/m^3[3]. So a little calculation gives us a total of 20.7x10^21 kg of atmosphere. The area of the planet calculates to approximately 510x10^6 km[4] and the area of the planet above the Arctic Circle is about 21.1x10^6[5]. This means that the Arctic contains 4.14% of the surface area of the planet, and thus 4.14% of the atmosphere is above it. 14.4% of 20.7x10^21 m is 857x10^18 kg (857x10^21 g) of atmosphere.

The specific heat capacity of air is 1.012 J/(gK)[6]. So it will require 1.012 x 857x10^21 = 867X10^21 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of the atmosphere above the Arctic Circle by 1 degree Celsius. Now, assuming that increase in temperature is coming from CO2 alone, and remembering that CO2 will absorb and re-emit 0.006048% of the energy coming into the atmosphere, the total amount of solar radiation that is required to be coming in to allow for a 1 degree temperature rise is 867x10^21 / 0.00006048 = 14.3x10^27 joules of energy from the sun entering the area of the Arctic Circle.

The amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth annually is 4 x 10^18 Joules.

Source: www.makeitsolar.com...

The sun will require 3.5 billion years for enough solar radiation to cause CO2 to raise the atmosphere above the Arctic Circle by a single degree. If all the solar radiation coming into the entire planet were to be concentrated into the area of the planet above 66.5 degrees (the Arctic Circle), and assuming that nothing else was involved but CP2 absorption and no heat were lost to space, it would take 3.5 billion years for the temperature to raise 1 single solitary degree.

Someone will state that there are other forces at work; there are. They will say that it is not only CO2 absorbing energy, and that the CO2 is just absorbing more; that is correct. They will state that the additional CO2 is enough to tip the scales toward warming. NO! If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting light as heat, the amount of energy lost throughout the entire planet would be enough to drop the air temperature only in the region above the Arctic Circle by one degree in 3.5 billion years.

CO2 cannot be responsible for the ice melting.

But as I mentioned above, there are areas which are warming enough to cause glacial melt. Ironically, if you research the locations of undersea volcanic activity, you will notice a striking correlation between the locations of glacial melt and the locations of the volcanic activity.

In other words, you can complain about how we are destroying our environment with CO2 all you want. We are damaging it, but not with CO2. As long as you concentrate on CO2, you are allowing big business to get away with dumping real pollutants. As long as you concentrate on CO2, you are ignoring the very real changes taking place and will not be prepared when the carbon credit scam does nothing.

Deny ignorance, people. That is the opposite of embracing ignorance.

TheRedneck

Data sources:


1. - en.wikipedia.org...
   
   
2. - answers.yahoo.com...
   
   
3. - en.wikipedia.org...
   
   
4. - en.wikipedia.org... lists the mean radius of the earth as 6371 km. The area of a sphere is 4Πr².
   
   
5. - en.wikipedia.org... and based on the latitude of the Arctic Circle as 66.5°.
   
   
6. - en.wikipedia.org...

There's no doubt about climate change, man-made and otherwise. Debating that seems to be wasting time.

In that vein, has anybody else heard that the Northwest Passage was sailed recently?

one way to look at "climate change" is 'global change'.

the planet very well may be on a different path due to whatever variable. (gravitational pull too by what-ever influence)
so by default, the climate will/could change within its new context. (if a pole shift/land mass displacement happened)

the fact that 90+% of life on this planet has gone extinct in the past isn't just a saying.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The general 'consensus' among those who proclaim that the Arctic is warming is that CO2 levels are increasing the amount of heat in the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation and radiating it as heat. CO2 does have this property. It will, on average, absorb and re-emit light as heat amounting to 16% of the available sunlight hitting it.

lol

I see nothing's changed. Redneck's still playing amateur physicist.

Don't give up ya day-job, dude. Just passing through, hope stuff is better for you now. Take care.

reply to post by melatonin

I see nothing's changed. Redneck's still playing amateur physicist.

Yep, nothing's changed. Mel is still trying to confuse people so they can't see the facts instead of challenging those facts directly.

I did give up my day job... you know the one where I designed structures and developed electronic circuits. I only had 20 years in that field, though, nowhere near as much experience as you do.

Take care as well.

TheRedneck

Earth has had a long history. It's important to look at the past thousands of years to get a better idea.

During the Ice Age (8000+ years ago) most of Alaska was quite nice, and ice-free, and full of life (not too different from today). On the other hand, the Great Lakes were covered in thick glaciers (That area has been cooling significantly recently). Other areas that were previously covered in glaciers are seeing cooler temperatures as well.

Now, 1000 years ago was a fairly warm time, warmer than today. Vineyards grew abundantly in England, and even Greenland was able to grow crops. If the world was significantly warming, we would be seeing similarities to previous warm periods, but there are more similarities to cooling times.

If studied objectively, we seem to be entering into a cooler time, not a warmer time. The best place to learn about climate change is the library. Don't trust the internet.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yep, nothing's changed. Mel is still trying to confuse people so they can't see the facts instead of challenging those facts directly.

All it takes is for a user here to be bothered enough to actually spend 5 minutes schooling themselves on the greenhouse effect to see you're talking tripe. Given, that's generally asking a bit much.

You still think that the GHG nature of CO2 depends on absorption of sunlight? Right, lol.

I thought we went over this a while back. CO2 can account for up to 26% (clear sky; Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997) of the greenhouse effect - which depends on longwave radiation from the surface. The total radiation budget of the GE effect is around 125wm^-2. That's the greenhouse effect that gives the earth about 30'C worth of warming - we'd be purdy chilly without it.

I did give up my day job... you know the one where I designed structures and developed electronic circuits.

I only had 20 years in that field, though, nowhere near as much experience as you do.

Never designed a circuit in my life. Too busy with sciences. But if I need someone to design/develop me a hairdryer, I'll give you a shout. Anyway, I leave you to your Dunning-Kruger fantasies.

Cheers.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin
Sorry to disappoint you, but right now I'm just not in the mood to spin around the issues with you. Tell you what: you go actually read my post, and point out any mathematical or scientific flaws in it, and we can discuss it.

Otherwise, I'm just not in the mood to chase after your logistical dancing and then have the change in subject blamed on me.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by endisnighe
Explain to me, the weather model that shows the last 7 year decline in average tempature.

Which model is this? Do you have a source or are you just making this up?

One little question?

Cap and Trade is the total control of all aspects of all businesses in the US. Fact, 300+ page dumped at 3 am prior to 10 am vote.

Just 1 aspect-
All houses to be sold will be inspected to ensure they are up to date with California building codes prior to sale. HMMMMMM wonder why this bill has not been discussed on ATS. Any conspiracy their, or is it because our gov is ruthless?

And what does this possibly have to do with climate change? The original article posted and the Reuters article were about science, not about politics. Stick withthe program here endisnighe.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Warmest in 2000 years, and you post it like it is fact.

Seems to me that if you had bothered to read the article (I'm assuming that you would have not made suck a ridiculous statement if you had) you would have seen that the article was a statement of fact based on results of a scientific analysis. In fact, quoting from the Reuters article

Climate scientists have long known that Earth wobbles in its orbit, which affects how much sunlight reaches the Arctic in the summer. This is the first time a large-scale study has tracked decade-by-decade changes in Arctic summer temperatures this far back in time.

To figure this out, researchers looked at natural archives of temperature -- tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments -- along with computer models, which tallied closely with the natural record.

You see endisnighe, that is what we call "science" -- going out and trying to find these things out.

Deny ignorance, part of the T O C, but hell who cares. Let us just paste and copy whatever we can find. The EPA has been in the enforcement of environmental enforcement for how long? A mountain of ash from a coal plant that produces electricity flooded 1000's of acres of land in Tennesee will cause no problems according to the EPA. But idiots will keep thinking the government gives a RATS ASS about the public.

What does the EPA possibly have to do with climate change?

#ing sheeple should be shot and hung on the wall.

Dem=Repub
Obama=Bush

Prove me wrong, name one law Obama has repealed, name one policy he has changed.

Okay, so now you seem to be advocating genocide and devolved your argument into a rant against Obama. Sorry, that is not going to be enough to convince me that the science abut climate change is wrong.

Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by endisnighe

Told you OP. Didnt take long, did it!

[edit on 13-9-2009 by dodadoom]

*sigh* No dodadoom, it didn't take long at all. I do think though that I didn't expect the Obama bashing so early in the thread.