Emerging Consensus Shows Climate Change Already Having Major Effects

Trakar

VIP Member
Feb 28, 2011
1,699
73
83
Emerging Consensus Shows Climate Change Already Having Major Effects on Ecosystems and Species
Released: 12/18/2012 11:45:00 AMContact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192Catherine Puckett, USGS
Phone: 352-377-2469

Aileo Weinmann, NWF
Phone: 202-797-6801

Sandra Leander, ASU
Phone: 480-965-9865




In partnership with: National Wildlife Federation, Arizona State University
72_national_wildlife_federation.jpg
72_az_univ.jpg


http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3483#http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3483#
[URL="http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3483#"]4[/URL]





Plant and animal species are shifting their geographic ranges and the timing of their life events – such as flowering, laying eggs or migrating – at faster rates than researchers documented just a few years ago, according to a technical report on biodiversity and ecosystems used as scientific input for the 2013 Third National Climate Assessment.
The report, Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services, synthesizes the scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting ecosystems, ecosystem services and the diversity of species, as well as what strategies might be used by natural resource practitioners to decrease current and future risks. More than 60 federal, academic and other scientists, including the lead authors from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Wildlife Federation and Arizona State University in Tempe, authored the assessment.
"These geographic range and timing changes are causing cascading effects that extend through ecosystems, bringing together species that haven't previously interacted and creating mismatches between animals and their food sources," said Nancy Grimm, a scientist at ASU and a lead author of the report.
Grimm explained that such mismatches in the availability and timing of natural resources can influence species' survival; for example, if insects emerge well before the arrival of migrating birds that rely on them for food, it can adversely affect bird populations. Earlier thaw and shorter winters can extend growing seasons for insect pests such as bark beetles, having devastating consequences for the way ecosystems are structured and function. This can substantially alter the benefits people derive from ecosystems, such as clean water, wood products and food.
"The impact of climate change on ecosystems has important implications for people and communities," said Amanda Staudt, a NWF climate scientist and a lead author on the report. "Shifting climate conditions are affecting valuable ecosystem services, such as the role that coastal habitats play in dampening storm surge or the ability of our forests to provide timber and help filter our drinking water."
Another key finding is the mounting evidence that population declines and increased extinction risks for some plant and animal species can be directly attributed to climate change. The most vulnerable species are those already degraded by other human-caused stressors such as pollution or exploitation, unable to shift their geographic range or timing of key life events, or that have narrow environmental or ecological tolerance. For example, species that must live at high altitudes or live in cold water with a narrow temperature range, such as salmon, face an even greater risk due to climate change.
"The report clearly indicates that as climate change continues to impact ecological systems, a net loss of global species’ diversity, as well as major shifts in the provision of ecosystem services, are quite likely," said Michelle Staudinger, a lead author of the report and a USGS and University of Missouri scientist.
For example, she added, climate change is already causing shifts in the abundance and geographic range of economically important marine fish. "These changes will almost certainly continue, resulting in some local fisheries declining or disappearing while others may grow and become more valuable if fishing communities can find socially and economically viable ways to adapt to these changes."
Natural resource managers are already contending with what climate change means for the way they approach conservation. For example, the report stated, land managers are now more focused on the connectivity of protected habitats, which can improve a species’ ability to shift its geographic range to follow optimal conditions for survival.
"The conservation community is grappling with how we manage our natural resources in the face of climate change, so that we can help our ecosystems to continue meeting the needs of both people and wildlife," said Bruce Stein, a lead author of the report and director of climate adaptation at the National Wildlife Federation.
Other key findings of the report include:
  • Changes in precipitation and extreme weather events can overwhelm the ability of natural systems to reduce or prevent harm to people from these events. For example, more frequent heavy rainfall events increase the movement of nutrients and pollutants to downstream ecosystems, likely resulting not only in ecosystem change, but also in adverse changes in the quality of drinking water and a greater risk of waterborne-disease outbreaks.
  • Changes in winter have big and surprising effects on ecosystems and their services. Changes in soil freezing, snow cover and air temperature affect the ability of ecosystems to store carbon, which, in turn, influences agricultural and forest production. Seasonally snow-covered regions are especially susceptible to climate change because small precipitation or temperature shifts can cause large ecosystem changes. Longer growing seasons and warmer winters are already increasing the likelihood of pest outbreaks, leading to tree mortality and more intense, extensive fires. Decreased or unreliable snowfall for winter sports and recreation will likely cause high future economic losses.
  • The ecosystem services provided by coastal habitats are especially vulnerable to sea-level rise and more severe storms. The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are most vulnerable to the loss of coastal protection services provided by wetlands and coral reefs. Along the Pacific coast, long-term dune erosion caused by increasing wave heights is projected to cause problems for communities and for recreational beach activities. However, other kinds of recreation will probably improve due to better weather, with the net effect being that visitors and tourism dollars will shift away from some communities in favor of others.
  • Climate change adaptation strategies are vital for the conservation of diverse species and effective natural resource policy and management. As moreadaptive management approaches are developed, resource managers can enhance the country’s ability to respond to the impacts of climate change through forward-looking and climate science-informed goals and actions.
  • Ecological monitoring needs to be improved and better coordinated among federal and state agencies to ensure the impacts of climate change are adequately monitored and to support ecological research, management, assessment and policy. Existing tracking networks in the United States will need to improve coverage through time and in geographic area to detect and track climate-induced shifts in ecosystems and species.
Background:
Federal law requires that the U.S. Global Change Research Program submit an assessment of climate change and its impacts to the President and the Congress once every four years. Technical reports, articles and books – such as this report -- underpin the corresponding chapters of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment, due out in 2013. This technical report is available at the USGCRP website, as are other completed technical reports. Additional lead authors of this report include Shawn Carter, USGS: F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy; and Mary Ruckelshaus, Natural Capital Project.
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...
:eusa_eh:
US climate worries rise, political action wanes, experts say
Mon, Jan 21, 2013 - Climate change was thrust to the forefront of the US political agenda recently in the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy and record high temperatures across the country.
However, despite US President Barack Obama renewing his early promises to act, experts said that political opposition would make doing so at least as difficult as during Obama’s first, failed push to get new legislation through US Congress, and said decisive measures remain unlikely. “All the public opinion polls show a better understanding of the link between climate change and extreme weather events,” said Alden Meyer, strategy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, he added that “there is still a lot to do in the Republican Party and in the business community” to get them on board with Obama’s plans.

Growing public concern over global warming was laid out in a recent study by the Rasmussen Institute, carried out shortly before the presidential election in November last year, but after Sandy slammed into the US’ northeast. The study showed that 68 percent of US voters believed that climate change was a serious problem, compared with just 46 percent in 2009. Since being re-elected, Obama has addressed climate change several times, pledging to launch a nationwide conversation to find common ground because “we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.” Obama acknowledged that his stance on climate change would require “tough political choices.”

The makeup of Congress remains largely the same as before the November vote. Republicans have retained the majority in the US House of Representatives and a significant bloc come from the ultra-conservative Tea Party, while in the US Senate, Democrats strengthened their majority. Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions think tank said that growing public awareness of climate change “has yet to translate into a surge in political willingness.” In 2010, amid an economic crisis, the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the creation of a national market of greenhouse gas emissions — a so-called cap-and-trade system — that would penalize coal and oil users in favor of those using renewable energy.

Obama’s most effective weapon lies in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which he could use to regulate greenhouse gas emissions — in particular carbon dioxide from coal power plants. These power plants are responsible for one-third of emissions in the US, the world’s second-biggest polluter after China and the top polluter per capita. The EPA has proposed stricter limits for new power plants, but has not acted on existing plants. Meyer said it might be less impossible for Obama to pass a carbon tax after next year, with a new Congress and in the two final years of his mandate. The tax, which could be framed as a way to cut the US’ deficit — a priority for both parties — is popular among economists and several Republicans.

US climate worries rise, political action wanes, experts say - Taipei Times
 
And is this unprecedented in the history of the earth? Can you point to any proof that it is due to our burning of fossil fuels?
 
Yes, the rapid rise of GHGs in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the geologic history of the Earth. Not in the P-T Extinction Event, not in the T-J Extinction Event, and not in the PETM event did the GHGs rise as fast at they are have risen in the last 150 years.

Methane catastrophe

Yes, we can easily prove that the rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. First, we know from records how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Very easy to figure how much CO2 that each ton, barrel, or cubic foot produces. Second, we know that the isotopal distribution of Carbon isotopes is differant for these sources of sequestered carbon than it is for the carbon in the natural carbon cycle. And we are seeing the change in the isotopal ratio in the carbon in the atmosphere reflecting that differance.
 
Yes, we can easily prove that the rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. First, we know from records how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Very easy to figure how much CO2 that each ton, barrel, or cubic foot produces. Second, we know that the isotopal distribution of Carbon isotopes is differant for these sources of sequestered carbon than it is for the carbon in the natural carbon cycle. And we are seeing the change in the isotopal ratio in the carbon in the atmosphere reflecting that differance.

So you say. Lets see the proof. History tells us that for most of earth history, atmospheric CO2 has been well above 1000 PPM. Was there any runaway warming during most of earth hstory?
 
Yes, we can easily prove that the rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. First, we know from records how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Very easy to figure how much CO2 that each ton, barrel, or cubic foot produces. Second, we know that the isotopal distribution of Carbon isotopes is differant for these sources of sequestered carbon than it is for the carbon in the natural carbon cycle. And we are seeing the change in the isotopal ratio in the carbon in the atmosphere reflecting that differance.

So you say. Lets see the proof. History tells us that for most of earth history, atmospheric CO2 has been well above 1000 PPM. Was there any runaway warming during most of earth hstory?

Really stupid. What we are talking about here is a rapid increase in the CO2. That involves a rapidly changing climate, one that is inimical to an agriculture that is supposed to support 7 billion people.

As for proof of the source of the CO2, that has been presented many times in links to scientific sources by myself and many others. In the meantime, you have presented nothing but flap-yap for your point of view.
 
Really stupid. What we are talking about here is a rapid increase in the CO2. That involves a rapidly changing climate, one that is inimical to an agriculture that is supposed to support 7 billion people.

As for proof of the source of the CO2, that has been presented many times in links to scientific sources by myself and many others. In the meantime, you have presented nothing but flap-yap for your point of view.

I asked for proof and can't help but notice that you didn't provide any. It is a trend with you guys.....ask for proof, get nothing but name calling. Ever wonder why that might be?
 
Dark Matter causes Climate Change

At this point I don't think they even know that they are arguing with people who are laughing at them in contempt of their ignorance.

All one need do is look around to see the big rats positioning themselves to jump the good ship AGW.
 
SSDD.......I think it is pretty fucking funny that this guy Thunder calls us "retards" but doesnt know the difference between "insane" and "retarded".


yuk........yuk.......I love this forum.
 
SSDD.......I think it is pretty fucking funny that this guy Thunder calls us "retards" but doesnt know the difference between "insane" and "retarded".

I know the difference but in your case, kookster, you are clearly both severely retarded and quite insane.
 
Really stupid. What we are talking about here is a rapid increase in the CO2. That involves a rapidly changing climate, one that is inimical to an agriculture that is supposed to support 7 billion people.

As for proof of the source of the CO2, that has been presented many times in links to scientific sources by myself and many others. In the meantime, you have presented nothing but flap-yap for your point of view.

I asked for proof and can't help but notice that you didn't provide any. It is a trend with you guys.....ask for proof, get nothing but name calling. Ever wonder why that might be?

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases
 
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf

The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the
past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century
is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years.
The present atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by anthropogenic
emissions of CO2. About three-quarters of these
emissions are due to fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning (plus
a small contribution from cement production) released on
average 5.4 ± 0.3 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989, and 6.3 ± 0.4
PgC/yr during 1990 to 1999. Land use change is responsible for
the rest of the emissions.
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 content was 3.3 ±
0.1 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989 and 3.2 ± 0.1 PgC/yr during 1990
to 1999. These rates are less than the emissions, because some of
the emitted CO2 dissolves in the oceans, and some is taken up by
terrestrial ecosystems. Individual years show different rates of
increase. For example, 1992 was low (1.9 PgC/yr), and 1998 was
the highest (6.0 PgC/yr) since direct measurements began in
1957. This variability is mainly caused by variations in land and
ocean uptake.


A much more comprehensive explanation. Now, SSDD, present equal evidence. Can you do that?
 
Really stupid. What we are talking about here is a rapid increase in the CO2. That involves a rapidly changing climate, one that is inimical to an agriculture that is supposed to support 7 billion people.

As for proof of the source of the CO2, that has been presented many times in links to scientific sources by myself and many others. In the meantime, you have presented nothing but flap-yap for your point of view.

I asked for proof and can't help but notice that you didn't provide any. It is a trend with you guys.....ask for proof, get nothing but name calling. Ever wonder why that might be?

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases

Same old song and dance. I ask for proof, none is forthcoming. Point out proof in that article. There is suggestion, a lot of assumption, some prognistication, and even some dishonesty. Where is the proof. You claim it is there....point it out.
 
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf

The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been
exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the
past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century
is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years.
The present atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by anthropogenic
emissions of CO2. About three-quarters of these
emissions are due to fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning (plus
a small contribution from cement production) released on
average 5.4 ± 0.3 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989, and 6.3 ± 0.4
PgC/yr during 1990 to 1999. Land use change is responsible for
the rest of the emissions.
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 content was 3.3 ±
0.1 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989 and 3.2 ± 0.1 PgC/yr during 1990
to 1999. These rates are less than the emissions, because some of
the emitted CO2 dissolves in the oceans, and some is taken up by
terrestrial ecosystems. Individual years show different rates of
increase. For example, 1992 was low (1.9 PgC/yr), and 1998 was
the highest (6.0 PgC/yr) since direct measurements began in
1957. This variability is mainly caused by variations in land and
ocean uptake.


A much more comprehensive explanation. Now, SSDD, present equal evidence. Can you do that?

Again...no proof. 420,000 years? Is it the contention of climate science that the earth is 420,000 years old? I specifically stated the history of the earth. To the best of my knowledge, 420,000 years isn't even an eyeblink in terms of earth history, even 20 million which is a guess on the part of this article doesn't even scratch the surface. I guess if that passes for comprehensive in your mind, it does go a long way towards explaining your terror of natural cycles and complete inabillity to realise that you are presently in one..
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top