Effects of Climate Warming Already in Evidence

WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2002 (ENS) - Ecosystems around the globe are showing the effects of climate warming. Earlier arrival of migrant birds, earlier appearance of butterflies, earlier spawning in amphibians, earlier flowering of plants - spring has been coming sooner every year since the 1960s, researchers reported Wednesday.

The report from German scientists investigates all regions of the globe. They predict some species will vanish because they cannot expand into new areas when their native climate heats up.

"Although we are only at an early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses to recent climate change are already clearly visible," write Gian-Reto Walther of the University of Hanover, Germany, and colleagues in this week's issue of the journal "Nature."

After reviewing changes in various animal and plant populations over the past 30 years of warming at the end of the 20th century, the authors found "a coherent pattern of ecological change across systems" from the poles to the equatorial seas.

"There is now ample evidence that these recent climatic changes have affected a broad range of organisms with diverse geographical distributions," Walther and his team report.

"The implications of such large scale, consistent responses to relatively low average rates of climate change are large," the researchers warn, adding that, "the projected warming for the coming decades raises even more concern about its ecological and socio-economic consequences."

The Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, the researchers note. Starting around 1976, the rate of global warming more than doubled, changing faster than at any other time during the last 1,000 years.

However, average global climate has far less effect on local ecosystems than do local and regional climate changes.

The reproduction of amphibians and reptiles is disrupted by changes in temperature and humidity. In painted turtles, the ration of male to female offspring is related to the mean July temperature, said Walther, and the production of male offspring could be compromised even by modest temperature increases.

In the polar regions, winter freezes are now occurring later and ending earlier, leading to a 10 percent decrease in snow and ice cover since the late 1960s.

These dramatic local changes are having equally dramatic effects on cold weather species such as penguins, seals and polar bears, the researchers found.

Miniscule Southern Ocean crustaceans called krill, a key food source for higher predators such as penguins and other seabirds, whales, seals, as well as a fishery target, are being influenced by climate change. Walther's team found the warming climate is affecting the reproductive grounds of krill by reducing the area of sea ice formed near the Antarctic Peninsula, which leads to both food web and human economic consequences.

Rapid environmental warming has been reported over the last 30 to 50 years at a number of stations in the Antarctic, particularly in the Antarctic Peninsula region and on sub-Antarctic islands, along with changes in precipitation patterns.

Likewise, tropical oceans have increased in temperature by up to eight degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, the research team has found, triggering widespread coral bleaching.

Climate linked invasions of warm weather species into traditionally colder areas includes the immigration of unwanted neighbors - epidemic diseases. "There is much evidence that a steady rise in annual temperatures has been associated with expanding mosquito borne diseases in the highlands of Asia, East Africa and Latin America," the study says.

Geographical differences are evident for both plants and birds, with delayed rather than earlier onset of spring phases in southeastern Europe, including later bird arrival in the Slovak Republic, and a later start of the growing season in the Balkan region, the team has found.

Later onset of autumn changes were recorded, too, but these shifts are less pronounced and show a more variable pattern. In Europe, for example, the length of the growing season has increased in some areas by up to 3.6 days per decade over the past 50 years.

Overall, Walther's team reports, "trends of range changes show remarkable internal consistency between studies relating to glaciers, plant and insect ranges and shifting isotherms," which are lines of constant temperature.

The study concludes that based on the evidence "only 30 years of warmer temperatures at the end of the 20th century have affected the phenology [timing of seasonal activities] of organisms, the range and distribution of species, and the composition and dynamics of communities."

Actually, the average temperatures DECREASED in the middle of the century .... from the mid-30's through the early 80's temperatures went DOWN.

Only in the last 20 years have they risen - and they've risen by less 1/4 of what these "programs" predict for the ACTUAL increase in CO2 concentration..

John Daly's Still Waiting for Greenhouse site has a feature about the Nenana Ice Classic (also written up in this month's issue of Discover magazine) that cites a similar trend.

John Daly cites the Nenana Ice Classic as an example of how Global Warmers lie. Did you read the article, or are you like the typical Gorebull Liar who only accepts what supports their outrageous theory. Here's a graph from the "cite" that shows the "similar trend":

As usual, when ALL the data is shown, it shows what outright absolute LIARS Global Warmers are.

The funny thing about the Climatic Research Unit's Global Tempreture trend is you only get warming if you believe the data from: 1) over the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia 2) West Africa 3) Central Brazil 4) Polynesia 5) Pacific Ocean west of Mexico and 6) Northeastern Siberia. In other words a bunch of poorly controlled stations (and areas that will benefit from any global warming treaty). The data from North America, Western Europe, and Australia agree with the satellite data which shows no real warming trend over the last 30 years.

In summary, good data = no warming, suspect data = significant warming. The 'experts' are 100% sure there has been significant warming. And the 'experts' lie.

"Some" of the experts lie.

Many analyze and report valid, accurate, correct results.

The news media prints and exploits ONLY those "eco-extremist experts" who DO lie.

And the thousands of "ecologists" who blatantly exaggerate these lies.

"Some" of the experts lie. Many analyze and report valid, accurate, correct results.

Those "some" of course include the ones who run and control the IPCC. There are many good scientist who put out good data, but then that data is convoluted and spun by the IPCC.

If I had to place money on a coming heat wave or a coming ice age I would go with the ice age.

I as refering to the "scientific consensus" of the 70's and early 80's that was all the rage and what was making up their "doom and gloom" predictions, a coming ice age. And guess what they said was going to cause this ice age? You got it, our burning of fossil fuels and the resulting release of CO2.

I wonder what the people in Siberia, who have had record cold winters the past 2 years, think about the global warming theory?

Have you gone to www.john-daly.com?

Like im going to go to an alcoholic, wife beating professional golfer for information on global warming.

Just kidding, I know its a different John Daly.

Actually rainfall here and humidity here is down, especially in the mid zones, the east side is still getting plenty of rain). It's cooler but dryer (we've noticed things wetting up in Phoenix, our water table went up for the first time in a few decades, normally Phoenix causes a suck which makes the water table in this area one of the few that runs uphill). Still keeping solid desert humidity (you know, complaining when it gets up over 10, complaining a lot when it hits 20... being a transplanted Chicago boy I laugh at myself when I do that), we just aren't getting the highs, either the spikes or the sustains (right around the 117 year we also did 100 consecutive days over 100, now it won't stay that high more than 2 weeks in a row).

Weather has always been interesting to me, started when I walked all over learning to observe the weather was a survival skill. One thing I have learned for sure about weather is that if you want to predict the weather next year you need at least 4 year's data, and that ratio seems to hold. Simply put we just don't have the data available to have any clue what the weather is going to be like in 2102. Just gotta ride it out, one of the big strengths of human beings is that we're adaptable, when the time comes we'll be ready one way or the other.

Tucson is in a wierd dip or something. Phoenix, 100 miles straight north from here, is generally hotter than us. We've always had cooler temperatures than places you think should be cooler than us. Remember distance from the equator isn't the only determiner, altitude has an effect, and so does the terrain. We've learned that highly reflective ground surfaces (like concrete, or some types of sand) raise temperatures. There's probably other stuff too that I'm just not smart enoughto know about.

Of course we still spike up over 100 regularly, and over 110 a couple times a year. Once you get in that range it's just HOT and the actual number isn't that important.

So according to our impromptu and highly unscientific study the desert areas are getting cooler. Maybe that's the cause of global warming, maybe that desert heat is finally dispersing over the rest of the planet. That's as good an explanation as what the envirowhackos are proposing.

I don't dispute the notion of "global warming" (just check out any receding glacier in a mountainous region for evidence) -- what I don't accept is the idea that man-made influences are the cause of this warming trend. There was an article a few months ago that identified a gradual shrinking of the polar caps on Mars, and as far as I know the Big Three auto makers haven't even started selling cars there, let alone gas-guzzling SUVs.

Actually, the average temperatures DECREASED in the middle of the century .... from the mid-30's through the early 80's temperatures went DOWN.

Recent models have successfully duplicated this trend.

Overall Assessment of Abilities See Figure 13.

Only in the last 20 years have they risen - and they've risen by less 1/4 of what these "programs" predict for the ACTUAL increase in CO2 concentration.

This is outdated information and I don't know what you're basing it on. Improved models more closely duplicate the observed temperature increase.

Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era

When an environmentalist can explain to me why Viking burial grounds have been found in parts of Greenland that are today permanently frozen, then maybe I will consider the possibility of "global warming" as a consequence of human activity. This and many other observations (including crocodilian fossils found in the Arctic, and hippopotamus fossils found in Europe) are evidence that long-term climactic change is a natural phenomenon.

It's pretty obvious that long-term climatic change is a natural phenomenon. The changes that have occurred over the past 150-200 years aren't considered long-term, and they have likely been influenced by human activities. That doesn't mean that none of the change in that period has been natural, it only means that some of the change probably hasn't been natural.

Have you gone to www.john-daly.com? He gives reasons why the large spike in the latter half of the twentieth century is probably a result of measurement errors and shoddy data. He shows why this graph is suspect by contrasting it with the temperature charts for the US and with global satellite data.

Yes, I've been there and I've corresponded with Daly several times. For one thing, it's hard for me to rate the opinions of a retired ship's radio officer over research results from some of the best climate scientists in the world. Furthermore, when someone doesn't know (and doesn't check to find out) that a satellite has two radar units rather than being two separate satellites, and thinks that K2 is in the Himalayan range rather than the Hindu Kush, it's hard for me to take him seriously when he discusses measurement errors and shoddy data.

Having said all that, Daly does highlight problems with the ground measurement network which have also been covered in recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences. And he does a good job of finding uncertainties in current trends. But like I said, I can't consider him as more authoritative than scientists in the climate research community.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.