RECENT NEWS ARTICLES on CLIMATE CHANGE

(see TODAY's Climate Change stories at: www.climateark.org/news (a University of Wisconsin news service); ARCHIVAL stories below)

1. Scientists answer questions raised in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow?" 
2. Global Warming Spirals Upwards (Independent/UK)
3. Ocean Warming  (NY Times editorial)
4. Blair to cut ghgs by 60% (Times of London)
5. NRC blasts Bush's climate "research" plan (NY Times)
6. Ocean temps linked to continental drought (Associated Press)
7. Small temperature change triggers many migrations (LA Times)
8. IPCC chief links indifference to climate change to terrorism (Reuters)
9. Arctic ice melting much faster than anticipated (Toronto Globe & Mail)
10. Climate change drives major water scarcity in Western US (Associated Press)
11. States, not Washington, lead in climate efforts (Washington Post)

Global Chilling

New York Times op-ed
January 28, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/opinion/28EPST.html?ex=1076344891&ei=1&en=

By PAUL R. EPSTEIN

BOSTON - It seemed incongruous when former Vice President Al Gore gave a
speech on global warming on a bitterly cold day in New York City this month.
But in fact it was an appropriate topic: New Yorkers may be able to blame
the city's current cold spell - the most severe in nearly a decade - on
global warming.

Global warming doesn't mean that every place on the globe gets warmer. The
weather history that can be read in polar ice-core samples indicates that
previous periods of warming affected North America and Europe far
differently than they did the tropics - the Northern Hemisphere got a lot
colder.

It's far too early to say for sure, but the same processes may be at work
today. In the past 50 years, the top two miles of the world's oceans have
warmed significantly, and that warming is melting sea ice. In just four
decades, the thickness of summer North Polar floating ice shrank 44 percent.
In addition, warming makes droughts drier and longer, and when the
evaporated water returns to earth it does so in heavier downpours.

Normally, water circulates in the North Atlantic like this: Cold, salty
water at the top sinks; that sinking water acts as a pump, pulling warm Gulf
Stream water north and thus moderating winter weather. But now, fresh water
from the thawing ice and heavier rain is accumulating near the ocean's
surface; it's not sinking as quickly. (The tropics are faced with the
opposite phenomenon. According to Dr. Ruth Curry and her colleagues at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the tropical Atlantic is becoming
saltier; as warming increases, so does evaporation, which leaves behind
salt.) The "freshening" in the North Atlantic may be contributing to a
high-pressure system that is accelerating trans-Atlantic winds and
deflecting the jet stream - changes that may be driving frigid fronts down
the Eastern Seaboard. The ice-core records demonstrate that the North
Atlantic can freshen to a point where the deep-water pump fails, warm water
stops coming north, and the northern ocean suddenly freezes, as it did in
the last Ice Age. No one can say if that is what will happen next. But since
the 1950's, the best documented deep-water pump, between Iceland and
Scotland, has slowed 20 percent.

Why now? After all, the planet's previous periods of global warming resulted
from changes in the earth's tilt toward the sun, and recent calculations of
these cycles indicate that our hospitable climate was not due to have ended
any time soon. But because of the warming brought by the buildup of carbon
dioxide, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, the equations have
changed. We are entering uncharted waters. It's something for New Yorkers to
ponder as they bundle up.


Paul R. Epstein is associate director of the Center for Health and the
Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Blair plans 60% cut in greenhouse gas output
The Times of London (Timesonline.co.uk) Feb, 24, 2003

Tony Blair will pledge a drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions today in an attempt to lessen the effects of global warming on the environment. Mr Blair will announce plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions in Britain by 60 per cent by 2050. The announcement has been timed to coincide with the publication of a White Paper on Britain's energy needs. The document will pledge the investment of more than ?350 million in the research and development of renewable forms of energy, including wind, wave, solar and tidal power. Mr Blair will also call on the leading industrialised nations to forge a "new covenant" to protect the environment from climate change.
The move comes after calls from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 per cent by 2050 or face devastating climate change. A team commissioned by Downing Street told Mr Blair that the target could be achieved with the use of existing and developing "green technologies". Fears that it could damage the economy were allayed after ministers were told that since 1997 the British economy had grown by 17 per cent and emissions had fallen 5 per cent. The Energy White Paper, to be published by Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, will give the grimmest forecast yet for the world's environment. It will claim that unless drastic steps are taken, the Earth's temperature will rise by up to 6C by the end of the century, driven by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-based energy sources. Ms Hewitt will announce plans to produce a fifth of the country's power through renewable energies. The decision will see hundreds more wind farms, some the size of oil rigs, being built offshore. Ministers believe that the renewable energy sector will see an extra ?1 billion a year in business. They will encourage companies to develop new ways to save energy. A government source said they would be encouraged to make "sleep" or "stand-by" switches on televisions that turn off automatically. A big rise in electricity prices could be used to force consumers to avoid waste. The White Paper will contain no plans for new nuclear power stations because Mr Blair feels that sources of renewable energy such as wind farms are far less susceptible to terrorist attacks. The paper will give warning that Britain will be a net importer of gas within three years, and of oil by 2010, leaving the country exposed to price increases caused by political instability. Bryony Worthington, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "The White Paper will hopefully sound the death knell for nuclear power in Britain. We also welcome what we expect to be a clear pledge to make cutting greenhouse gas emissions a central objective of energy policy." The Liberal Democrats said that ministers had ducked decisions about the future of the nuclear power industry, putting them back until after the next election. Vincent Cable, the trade spokesman, said: "This is more than just a missed opportunity, it is an embarrassment for Labour."
White Paper key points

• Plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions in Britain by 60 per cent by 2050.
• Investment of more than ?350 million in the research and development of renewable energy.
• No specific targets on raising the amount of power generated by renewable sources.
• No new plans for the nuclear industry.
• Warning that Britain will be a net importer of gas within three years, and of oil by 2010.
• Call for the leading industrialised nations to forge a "new covenant" to protect the environment from climate change.

UK unveils greener energy plans
BBCNews.com, Feb. 24, 2003

The UK Government has unveiled plans for a switch towards cleaner forms of energy, and away from fossil fuels and nuclear power. The long-awaited Energy White Paper, published on Monday, spells out plans for radically cutting the pollution blamed for global warming. It proposes reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere to 60% of 1990 levels by about 2050. It also announces the running-down of nuclear power stations, which currently supply about 25% of UK electricity. Instead, the White Paper encourages renewable power, such as wind and wave energy, and energy efficiency. These, it says, "will have to achieve far more in the next 20 years than previously. We believe such ambitious progress is achievable, but uncertain." It says the government will aim to go far beyond its stated goal that 10% of electricity should come from renewables by 2010 - up from 3% now. "We now set the ambition of doubling renewables' share of electricity generation in the decade after that", it says. Nuclear options Measures to cut down on the amount of energy actually used, or wasted, are also proposed. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is using a rare speech on the environment to commit the UK to the ambitious energy goals. The Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, told the BBC the White Paper signalled "a good day" for the environment, although the UK would have to strive to meet its targets. He said: "We have a firm existing target for renewables to make up 10% of electricity in the UK by 2010 and we say we should be aiming to double that by 2020. "Ten per cent by 2010 is a challenging target." But some analysts doubt whether targets, particularly those on CO2, can be achieved without nuclear energy. Britain's 16 nuclear power stations will all reach the end of their working lives in about 30 years, and the White Paper does not back the building of any more at present. But it keeps its options open. It says: "We do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets." The Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a major new nuclear programme would have undermined the drive for efficiency and renewables. But she added: "We are not absolutely ruling out new nuclear build forever." 'No actual targets' Environmental groups have welcomed the move away from nuclear power. Friends of the Earth said: "The White Paper will hopefully sound the final death knell for nuclear power in Britain". Some householders as well as the nuclear industry may be disgruntled by the proposals, which will add to electricity prices. The paper says the new policies will add between five and 15% to household electricity prices, up to 25% to industrial electricity prices and up to 30% to industrial gas prices by 2020. It has already been derided as "incompetent, irrelevant and frankly dangerous" by Sir Bernard Ingham, secretary of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy group. "At a time when greenhouse emissions are rising in Britain, it proposes to continue to allow the nuclear industry, which emits no greenhouse gases, to run down," he said. By 2010 the UK is on course to be a net fuel importer, for the first time since the industrial revolution. By 2020, the White Paper says, imported energy could be supplying three-quarters of the UK's needs. It says coal is still important for generating power. There will be more research into ways of storing CO2 where it cannot affect the climate, probably deep underground. But it does not tackle aircraft carbon emissions, which are a rapidly rising proportion of total emissions. Nor does it say much about land transport, which in the UK will soon emit more CO2 than electricity generation

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Experts Fault Bush Plan to Study Climate The New York Times, by Andrew C. Revkin, Feb. 25, 2003

A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush administration's proposed research plan on the risks of global warming, saying that it "lacks most of the elements of a strategic plan" and that its goals cannot be achieved without far more money than the White House has sought for climate research. The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely to accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several speeches: to help decision makers and the public determine how serious the problem is so that they can make clear choices about how to deal with it. The president has said that more research is needed before the administration can even consider mandatory restrictions on heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The expert panel, convened by the National Academy of Sciences at the administration's request, said some of the plan's proposals for new research seemed to rehash questions that had already been largely settled. It also found that the plan listed dozens of disparate research goals without setting priorities _ a particularly important failing, it said, inasmuch as the plan is intended to integrate about $1.7 billion a year in climate research now being conducted by more than a dozen agencies. The plan, the experts concluded, lacks "a guiding vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress, an assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, explicit prioritization and a management plan." Senior administration officials said they welcomed the panel's critique of the draft plan, and added that the final plan, scheduled for release in April, would most likely reflect some of the suggestions. "It may sound like `Oh, yes, please hit me again,' " said Dr. James R. Mahoney, an assistant secretary of commerce who is director of the federal Climate Change Science Program. But, he added, "I absolutely welcome their comments, even though it may sound like they're fairly harsh." The administration's plan calls for a vast array of work through the rest of the decade on goals like improving computer simulations of climate shifts, integrating measurements of global change and clarifying regional effects of warming. The panel brought together to critique the plan was drawn from the academic world, businesses including Honeywell and BP, and a private environmental organization. (The names of its members, along with the text of the report, are online at www.nas.edu.) The experts credited the administration for undertaking the effort in the first place. A broad government plan for climate research is required under a 1990 law, the Global Change Research Act, but was never completed during the administration of Mr. Bush's father or in the Clinton administration. As a result, many experts say, climate research has suffered. For example, American efforts to refine advanced computer models used to project the effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations have fallen behind those overseas, partly because of a lack of coordination. A unified approach is necessary, the new report concluded. But while the administration's plan is "an important first step," the experts said, it needs many changes, and more money. "They get an A for effort," said one panel member, Dr. Diane M. McKnight, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado. Another author, Dr. Michael J. Prather, an earth sciences expert at the University of California at Irvine, joined in academic metaphor: "This is the student paper that gets sent back two-thirds of the way through the term with red marks all over it. It doesn't have a grade yet." A particular concern among some on the panel was the plan's proposed focus on scientific questions that many experts say have been resolved. "In some areas, it's as if these people were not cognizant of the existing science," said one member, Dr. William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "Stuff that would have been cutting edge in 1980 is listed as a priority for the future." For example, the report said, far more is already known about human activity's contribution to global warming than is suggested by the administration's plan, which, the panel said, expresses too much uncertainty about the question. As for the report's assessment that the plan is more ambitious than the current government financing of $1.7 billion for climate research can support, Dr. Mahoney, of the Commerce Department, acknowledged that the budget was not likely to grow significantly this year or next, but noted that most other government programs were experiencing significant cuts. For example, the report said, far more is already known about human activity's contribution to global warming than is suggested by the administration's plan, which, the panel said, expresses too much uncertainty about the question. As for the report's assessment that the plan is more ambitious than the current government financing of $1.7 billion for climate research can support, Dr. Mahoney, of the Commerce Department, acknowledged that the budget was not likely to grow significantly this year or next, but noted that most other government programs were experiencing significant cuts. In concluding that a flat budget would not be enough, the report said the goals could be accomplished only with "greatly increased" spending or sharp cutbacks in other government research money to allow the savings to flow to climate studies. The panel was convened by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which advises the government on scientific and technical matters. Its report, said lawmakers who have long criticized the administration's climate policies, supports their contention that the goal of more research is really an excuse for more delay. "Global climate change affects every aspect of our daily lives, from land and water resources to agriculture and human health," said Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is seeking his party's nomination to run against Mr. Bush next year. He said the findings "should be a wake-up call for this administration." Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, defended the plan, saying it followed "a prudent course by trying to strengthen our limited understanding of the underlying causes and impacts of climate change." Since the draft research plan was issued in November, more than 270 written comments have been received, from sources as varied as environmental groups and companies whose business could be harmed by limits on emissions. Dr. Mahoney said the initial plan had always been considered a rough draft. "It's like getting a ship into motion," he said. "Let's make a solid start, and then we've got something to critique and build on."

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Link Seen Between Ocean Temperatures And Continental Drought

Can we blame the ocean for the drought? The Associated Press, Jan. 30, 2003 WASHINGTON (AP)

Unusual temperatures in the Indian and Pacific oceans set up the perfect conditions for drought stretching nearly around the world in 1998-2002, climate researchers report. The four-year drought affected much of the United States as well as southern Europe and southwest Asia. And while they can't be certain, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate scientists Martin Hoerling and Arun Kumar say it may be a harbinger of droughts to come. Their analysis is published in Friday's issue of the journal Science. During that four-year period drought plagued much of the United States, southern Europe and southwest Asia. The researchers concluded that all three were the result of the same unusual ocean conditions. Cold sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific and warm sea surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans worked together to cause the widespread drying, said Hoerling, based at the Climate Diagnostics Center in Boulder, Colorado. A warming of the eastern tropical Pacific has since occurred, helping spur storms and rain that have eased the drought in the Eastern states, he noted. But the dry conditions persist in the west and in parts of Asia, a situation for which he doesn't yet have an explanation. The scientists established the link using three different climate models, complex computer programs that use mathematical equations to calculate changes in the weather as warmth, moisture, wind and other conditions change. They ran the models 50 times using slightly different starting conditions each time and then adding the actual recorded sea surface conditions. They averaged the results which produced the drought that actually occurred. All of the results produced drier than normal conditions over the drought-plagued areas. Could this lead to forecasting droughts in the future? "We certainly hope so," Hoerling said. He said he and Kumar, of the Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Md., were surprised at how strong the link was in the model results, indicating the droughts were all caused by the same source. "The warmth in the west Pacific during 1998-2002 simply has no precedent in at least the past 150 years," Hoerling said. The warming is partly due to global greenhouse warming, the researchers said. That suggests, they added, that if such warming continues there is an increased risk of synchronized drought at mid-latitudes in the future. Mathew Barlow of Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., in Lexington, Mass., called the paper a "very interesting work that adds information to the dynamics that affect the drought in southwest Asia." Barlow, who was not part of the research team, is studying drought in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region seeking ways to make seasonal forecasts to assist humanitarian efforts there. He noted that the drought there was part of a Northern Hemisphere pattern involving the United States and stretching from the Mediterranean to northern India. Randall Dole, director of the Climate Diagnostics Center but not a participant in the study, said the study "provides compelling evidence for the crucial role that the tropical oceans played in producing widespread severe and sustained drought over the period 1998-2002." Unusual warming and cooling in the Pacific - known as El Nino and La Nina - have been linked to changes in weather around the world. However, this study added data from the Indian Ocean, not part of most past analyses. Copyright 2003 Associated Press

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Small Warming Triggers Large Species Migrations
Minute Shift in Temperature Has Had a Major Effect on Earth, Studies Show Species are migrating northward because of 1-degree increase in last 100 years, data reveal. It also has sped up spring flowering, egg hatching.
--The Los Angeles Times, Usha Lee McFarling, Jan. 2, 2003

Gradual warming over the last 100 years has forced a global movement of animals and plants northward, and it has sped up such perennial spring activities as flowering and egg hatching across the globe -- two signals that the Earth and its denizens are dramatically responding to a minute shift in temperature, according to two studies published today. One study showed that animals have shifted north an average of nearly four miles per decade. Another study showed that animals are migrating, hatching eggs and bearing young an average of five days earlier than they did at the start of the 20th century, when the average global temperature was 1 degree cooler. That 1 degree, according to the studies, has left "climatic fingerprints" -- pushing dozens of butterfly and songbird species into new territories, prompting birds and frogs to lay eggs earlier and causing tree lines to march up mountain slopes. In some cases, the shifts have been dramatic. The common murre, an Arctic seabird, breeds 24 days earlier than it did decades ago. And some checker-spot butterflies shifted their range northward by nearly 60 miles in the last century. Although many individual shifts in timing and range have been reported by field biologists, the studies published in today's issue of Nature are the first to establish that a variety of organisms in myriad habitats are responding in similar ways to climatic change. "There is a consistent signal," said Terry L. Root, a biologist at Stanford University and lead author of one report. "Animals and plants are being strongly affected by the warming of the globe." Root said she was surprised that the two Nature studies were able to detect the effect. She said she thought the increased temperature was too small to cause widespread change. Root also said she expected that any damaging effects of climatic change would be unnoticeable amid the enormous habitat destruction in modern times caused by development, pollution and other human activities. "It was really quite a shock, given such a small temperature change," she said. Many scientists have debated whether plants and wildlife have been widely affected by climatic change. Some have argued that no widespread response has occurred and that a few examples of animals changing the timing of their migration or reproduction have been used by environmental groups to overstate the dangers of global warming. The new studies attempt to override such criticism by analyzing thousands of reports of biological change and correlating them with climatic change. "People said there wasn't a quantitative analysis and it was just storytelling," said University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan, who led the other Nature study. "This is the first hard-core, quantitative analysis." The changes are not necessarily bad for all species. The earlier hatching of eggs gives some bird species a chance to lay two clutches of eggs per summer instead of one, Root said. With less frost in late spring and early fall, the growing season of many plants has been extended; crop yields are also up. But the scientists are concerned that warming will harm some species, particularly those already at risk. The extinction of the golden toad from the cloud forests of Costa Rica has been linked by some scientists to heat stress, Root said. And chicks of the jewel-colored quetzal bird in the same forest are now being preyed upon by toucans that moved to higher elevations in the forest as temperatures warmed, she said. Ecosystems could also be at risk, she added, if insects mature too late to pollinate plants that now flower earlier. The earlier migration of wood warblers is leaving behind spruce trees full of spruce budworm caterpillars, which devastate the trees and leave the timber damaged. "If we've had so much change with just one degree, think of how much we will have with 10 degrees," Root said, referring to projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on how high temperatures could rise in the next 100 years. "In my opinion, we're sitting at the edge of a mass extinction." But such worst-case scenarios underestimate the ability of biological entities to adapt, some experts say. In a report written for the George C. Marshall Institute, Lenny Bernstein, an expert on the social and economic effect of climatic change, said some "marginal species" will become extinct. He added, however, that plants and animals have always faced climatic changes and that they often have survived. Future human intervention could help increase survival rates, he said. Although the new studies do not address the cause of the recent warming, most scientists agree it is due to a mix of human and natural factors. An increasing number of scientists say that the warming is occurring at a rate unprecedented in the recent geological past and that it will be peppered by more extreme events, including heat waves, droughts, storms and floods. "It's not just the gradual warming that impacts individuals, it's these extreme events," Parmesan said. Convinced that wild animals and plants will need more room if warming continues, Root and Parmesan advocate including climatic change projections into long-range planning for wildlife management. Preserves may offer more options for survival if they run in a north-south direction, contain elevation gains or are connected to neighboring reserves, the scientists said. "Since we can't count on climate being stable," Parmesan said, "you need to give the organisms a chance to go through some unstable periods."

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Climate Change Could Prompt More Terrorism
IPCC Chief: Global warming may nurture extremism
Planetark.org, Dec. 9, 2002

BERLIN - Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions will exacerbate world poverty and could make millions of people more open to extremism, the chief of the United Nations' climate advisory body said. Rajendra Pachauri told Reuters the effects of climate change were likely to affect the developing world disproportionately and make the poor even poorer and more bitter. "Large areas of poverty are dangerous for the world as a whole as they provide fertile ground for extremist views... Things go wrong. People want to blame someone," Pachauri said. Pachauri said that by 2100, worldwide temperatures would be 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius higher than today and sea levels would rise by 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in). Island groups, such as the Maldives and the South Pacific would be particularly hard hit, while low-lying Bangladesh, already one of the world's poorest countries, could lose 17 percent of its land. Pachauri said there was no firm scientific proof that freak weather, such as the rain and floods that hit central Europe in August, was the result of climate change, but there was reason to be suspicious. "Purely by association, there is something to worry about. In the last 10 years, the number of such freak incidents has doubled," Pachauri said on the sidelines of an environmental conference in Berlin. Pachauri said he was encouraged by the prospect of Russia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, an international pact to reduce most industrial nations' net emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Russia's ratification is vital if the accord is ever to take effect after the withdrawal last year of the United States, the biggest polluter. He said he was pleased to see progress at regional level in the United States, but called for more public transport there. He also made an appeal to fellow scientists to increase public awareness of the costs of global warming. "We have to get the message out, inform the public of the economic and social losses, not just do research to create that message," said Pachauri, who is head of the Tata Energy Research Institute of India. Pachauri's task is to oversee the fourth assessment of climate change in 2007, which he wants to have a more regional focus, showing for example what effect climate change will have in particular parts of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Disappearance of Arctic Ice Seen Accelerating
Arctic Ice Melting Much Faster Than Thought
NASA study shows about 9 per cent is disappearing every 10 years
--The Tornoto Globe and Mail, Nov. 28, 2002

The vast expanse of permanent ice that has characterized the Arctic Ocean for millennia is fated to disappear far faster than anyone imagined, and will certainly be gone before the century is out, says a NASA satellite study. The startling survey shows that an area of ancient ice roughly as large as Alberta is vanishing every decade as the climate warms. Over the course of this survey, which ran from from 1978 to 2000, about 1.2 million square kilometers of supposedly permanent ice melted away -- more than the total area of Ontario. And the rate of the melt -- roughly 9 per cent a decade -- is speeding up, said physicist Josefino Comiso, senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and author of the study. "This year we had the least amount of permanent ice cover ever observed," Dr. Comiso said. His findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, have caused a stir because they show that the permanent ice cover is melting at roughly three times the rate scientists had thought. If the melt keeps up at this rate, the permanent ice cover at the top of the Earth will be gone before the end of this century. But Dr. Comiso doubts the melt will be as slow as that. Instead, as the dense ice disappears and exposes the ocean for the first time in millennia, the ocean will pull in greater and greater amounts of solar energy. That is bound to speed up the rate of the melt, Dr. Comiso said. As well, satellite data show that the surface temperature of the permanent ice is rising at the rate of 1.2 degrees C every decade,meaning that that could force the ice to melt even faster. The findings have huge implications for global climate patterns. Arctic snow and ice play a key role in controlling the planet's temperature. They act as insulation, keeping heat and moisture in the land and ocean and out of the atmosphere. But once the ice and snow are gone, that dynamic will end and this will affect climate all over the planet in ways scientists have not yet begun to fathom. The Arctic itself, so long forsaken, is likely to become humid and warm. Animals and fish that thrive on the permanent ice and snow -- polar bears, for example -- are likely to die off, unable to survive the heat. The cause of all this warmth, said Tom Agnew, a research meteorologist with the Meteorology Service of Canada, is linked to the greenhouse-gas emissions that humans are pumping into the atmosphere as they burn fossil fuels. And while Dr. Comiso's findings show that the warming and melting cycle is happening faster than expected, scientists have long predicted that the disrupted climate eventually will cause the permanent Arctic ice to vanish. Instead, the Arctic Ocean will partly freeze in the winter and thaw in the summer. Scientists do not believe the thawing trend is reversible. "This change is already taking effect," Mr. Agnew said. "The whole system is very slow to start and also very slow to stop." © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Western U.S. Water Future Seen as a "Train Wreck"
Study shows major water shortfall in Western U.S.
--The Associated Press, Nov. 21, 2002 LOS ANGELES (AP)

Global warming will have a devastating effect on the availability of water in the western United States, according to a new study done by a team of scientists. The study is billed as the most positive of a series of recent climate forecasts for a region already beset by drought. Even as a best-case scenario, it forecasts a virtual train wreck, with supplies falling far short of the projected future demands for water by cities, farms and wildlife, scientists said. "You'd like there to be some good news in there somewhere but unfortunately there is not," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Overall precipitation levels are likely to remain constant, but warmer temperatures mean what would have fallen as snow will instead come down as rain. Currently, the snowpack acts a natural reservoir, storing water through the winter only to melt and release it during the spring and summer when demand spikes. If that precipitation falls as winter rain, however, it will fill rivers and streams at a time of year when demand is low. The new study involved more than two dozen scientists and engineers, including at Scripps, the University of Washington, Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, who undertook it as a test of a national climate forecasting effort. The results are expected to appear in a future issue of the journal Climatic Change. Early next month, scientists will hold a hearing in Washington, D.C., to discuss a draft plan to study climate change on a national and global scale. To create the forecasts, scientists began two years ago with current observations of the state of the world's oceans , those vast reservoirs of heat that drive climate, and worked to translate that into real effects on precipitation and temperature in the Columbia, Sacramento and Colorado river basins. Although it is not the first study of its kind, it is the most rigorous, Barnett said. Among the findings of what is forecast to occur in the next 25 to 50 years: ? Reservoir levels along the Colorado River will drop by more than a third and releases by 17 percent. The lower levels and flows will cut hydropower generation by as much as 40 percent. ? The Sacramento River will see reduced reliability in the volumes of water available for irrigation, cities and hydropower. With less fresh water, the Sacramento Delta will increase in salinity, disrupting the ecosystem. ? On the Columbia River system, there will be water in the summer and fall to generate electricity, or in the spring and summer for salmon runs, but not both. "The problem is you basically can't resolve that trade off," said Dennis Lettenmaier, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington. Other scenarios that gauge the impact of even moderate global-scale warming on the West suggest the effects could be two to three times larger, or happen sooner, than the newer estimates, Barnett said. The continued growth in the population of the West will exacerbate the problem. Indeed, that alone makes for a crisis, said Bill Patzert, a NASA research oceanographer who was not connected with the new research. "The problem in the West is not climate change, it's too many people using too much water," Patzert said. "If nothing happens, we're in trouble. If something happens, it's worse." In California, the 2003 update to the state water plan, a document that forecasts water supplies, will include for the first time consideration of the impact of climate change. The plan, updated every five years, has not typically been tempered by changes in supply. "Climate change just adds to the complexity the already complex job of responding to changes in demand," said Doug Osugi, an engineer in the water planning branch of the California Department of Water Resources. One possible outcome is that the West would have to expand its network of dams, adding storage capacity to catch runoff, Barnett and others said. "Generally, our infrastructure was designed with the current climate in mind, not a different one, so that creates problems," said Pierre Stephens, lead water supply forecaster for the California Department of Water Resources.
Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

States Take the Lead in Fighting Climate Change On Global Warming, States Act Locally At Odds With Bush's Rejection of Mandatory Cuts, Governors and Legislatures Enact Curbs on Greenhouse Gases The Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2002 TRENTON, N.J.

With the Bush administration and Congress deadlocked over how best to combat the mounting threat of global warming, state officials across the country are taking matters into their own hands. California Gov. Gray Davis (D) has signed landmark legislation aimed at sharply reducing automobile and truck emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that many scientists say are the chief culprit in the earth's rising temperature. New Hampshire has enacted regulations of its own to combat rising temperatures in a bid to protect its colorful maple forests and lucrative syrup industry. Here in New Jersey, state officials are emphasizing incentives and covenants to encourage utilities, manufacturers, colleges and even churches to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The collective impact of these state efforts is relatively minor compared with the worldwide dimensions of the problem. Yet state officials and environmentalists say they highlight a failure in Washington to address global warming. "We're obviously very concerned that the federal government seems to be abdicating its responsibility to address the threat of global climate change," said Bradley M. Campbell, the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. "By contrast, there is bipartisan support among governors . . . to address the issue in a serious way." More than half the states have adopted voluntary or mandatory programs for reducing carbon emissions in recent years, according to a new study that will be released this week by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Fifteen states, including President Bush's home state of Texas, have enacted legislation requiring utilities to increase their use of renewable energy sources such as wind power or biomass in generating a portion of their overall electricity. "The trend is unmistakably towards more states taking an active role in climate change," said Barry G. Rabe, a professor of environmental policy at the University of Michigan and chief author of the Pew study. Bush last year abandoned a campaign pledge to seek mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and instead has advocated a series of voluntary measures. Last Tuesday's election, which returned control of the Senate to the Republicans and increased the GOP majority in the House, further strengthened the president's hand in resisting tough measures for combating global warming. "I don't think there is a leadership vacuum on this," said Joe Martyak, a spokesman for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, the former governor of New Jersey. "The president outlined a program on this that he put out last February," one that has prompted a number of companies to voluntarily begin to reduce their emissions. The National Academy of Sciences last year described global warming as a "real and particularly strong" problem caused at least in part by man-made pollution, which that could well have a "serious adverse" impact on weather patterns and sea levels by the end of the century. Many state officials consider global warming a direct threat to their economies and their citizens' health. Coastal states are concerned about possible links to rising sea levels. Agricultural states pummeled by drought or flooding fear that global warming may be contributing to the problem. Some industrial states have begun curbing plant emissions to be ready in case the federal government eventually imposes mandatory controls on utilities and other industries. Still other states that can harness wind, biomass or solar energy see a national shift to cleaner burning renewable fuels as a potential economic bonanza for them. Only a few states with large industrial bases, including Michigan and Ohio, have staunchly resisted carbon dioxide controls. Many state programs have been underway for years but were stepped up last year after Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 climate treaty supported by the Clinton administration that has been ratified by most of the world's major industrial countries. Bush said that the treaty would harm the U.S. economy and complained that many of the leading developing countries, including China and India, would not be bound by the restrictions. Without the participation of the United States -- which produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases -- experts say the treaty's mandatory targets will have little effect. So states have plunged ahead:

• California will have new regulations by 2006 to reduce car and truck emissions that, if they survive a challenge expected from the auto industry, could be a model for New York, New Jersey and other Northeast states.
• Texas has moved to ensure that 3 to 4 percent of its electricity will come from renewable energy sources, especially wind power, by the end of the decade.
• Massachusetts was the first state to formally target reductions in power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, part of broader regulations to control pollution from six major coal- and oil-burning facilities.
• New Hampshire has approved emission controls for the state's three aging coal-fired electric generating plants.
• Nebraska was the first to enact legislation linking agricultural policy with greenhouse gas emission. By altering crop planting schemes, Nebraska and other states can increase the amount of plants and trees that absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Officials are optimistic about long-term opportunities for farmers to be paid to store more carbon in their soil.
• New Jersey has taken a much broader approach. In 1998, the Republican administration of Whitman, who was then governor, set a goal of reducing total greenhouse gases 3.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. A charge was added to consumers' utility bills that raised $358 million for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. State officials scanned the horizon for innovations and experimented with a pollution credit trading program with the Netherlands. Perhaps the most visible initiatives are pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by New Jersey's 56 colleges and universities; by a few major corporations; by a coalition of nine religious denominations and more than 6,000 congregations; by public schools; and by the state's dominant utility, the Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. A central tenet was that the program was to be voluntary. Recently, however, the state has begun to take a much harder line. Last January, officials prodded a division of PSEG to fold its pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions into a larger legally binding consent decree that settled a case on the Clean Air Act. The utility giant must reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent from 1990 levels within four years or pay as much as $1.5 million in penalties. "There was a strong desire on New Jersey's part to have a climate change component to the settlement, and it was consistent with our own company's advocacy," said Mark Brownstein, PSEG Service Co.'s director of environmental strategy. The current administration of Gov. James E. McGreevey (D) is working on other tough measures, including increasing the state's use of renewable energy, building more energy-efficient public schools, and requiring utilities and large manufacturers to report periodically their emissions of carbon dioxide. The reporting requirement would mark an important step toward possible mandatory state regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. "It's encouraging to see so much state activity, particularly in light of the leadership vacuum in Washington," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew center. "But in the long run, state programs are no substitute for a comprehensive national policy."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company