The US Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency is concerned about the rapid warming. The director of the agency: Everything that happens on Earth starts in the Arctic region"
The Arctic region, known as the "refrigerator of the Earth" continues to warm, affecting populations and ecological environments as well as weather patterns in the most populated parts of the Northern Hemisphere. This is according to a study published by a team of 69 international scientists.
The findings were published on Thursday, October 21, 2010 in the Arctic Report Card, an assessment of Arctic conditions. Among the findings of 2010: Greenland experienced a relative heat wave, the ice is melting and the area of the glaciers is small.
The summer ice continues to shrink. The area covered by summer ice in 2009-2010 was the third from the last since satellite measurements began in 1979 and the thickness of summer ice continued to shrink. The 2010 mininium is the third since measurements began in 1979, preceded by 2008 and 2007. Arctic snow cover has been at a minimum since its measurement began in 1996.
There is also evidence that the effect of the higher temperatures of the air in the Arctic region in autumn contributes to the changes in the air currents both in the Arctic region and in the middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. The winter of 2009-2010 showed a connection between extreme cold in middle latitudes and snow events there and changes in wind patterns in the Arctic region, which resulted from a shift in atmospheric oscillation in the Arctic region.
"What is going to happen on the rest of the planet happens initially and at a greater rate in the Arctic region," says Jane Lobchenko, who is responsible for the oceans and atmosphere and director of NOAA. Beyond the impact on humans and the natural life that has made the area their home, the warming of the arctic area and the shrinking of the perpetually frozen area, the snow cover, glaciers and sea ice affect physical and biological systems in other parts of the world.
The Arctic region is an important driver of climate and weather all over the world and serves as a nutrient and breeding ground that supports a significant population of birds, mammals and fish."
In 2006, NOAA's Climate Program introduced the Annual Arctic Report, which provides a baseline of conditions since the beginning of the 21st century for monitoring rapidly changing conditions in the Arctic. Using a color system where red indicates constant conditions for warming, yellow shows that the effects of warming are visible in a variety of climatic indicators and species. The report is updated annually and tracks the atmosphere, sea ice, biology, ocean, land and changes in Greenland.
17 תגובות
All those who claim that there is no global warming, I remind you that fifty years ago the debate was whether smoking causes lung cancer, the tobacco companies recruited hundreds of doctors who claimed that smoking is not harmful but on the contrary it is relaxing, we know the truth.
you get the joke father
Schwarzenegger who uses a private plane every day from home to work and burns who knows how much DTP - is the climate knight...
You work with your eyes
Don't be for or against - look at the big picture first:
Here is a more recent speech by the Czech President from October of this year
His opening speech (with a serious bibliography) reveals the entire agenda on the subject
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1726-president-vaclav-klaus-inaugural-annual-gwpf-lecture.html
Read and come to your own conclusions
The tycoons don't interfere? You made Schwarzenegger laugh
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3976178,00.html
And I found another interesting thing - an attempt to find out among the 32 thousand who signed the 'petition' what they meant and who they were
http://climatecrocks.com/
Skeptic, what are you even talking about?
Will the oil tycoons lose? The taxes go to the citizen and not to them
British Petroleum is actually the largest solar panel company in the world.
The Hammist movement is political and has nothing to do with science at all
The Czech president explains it well in an interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_nO2A4xlwA
The science is there - the only thing missing is more people with a backbone who will resent corruption
As with the fact of evolution, so also with the issue of global warming:
There are those who are supported by facts, facts that are presented to those who are supposed to make a change,
Faced with the facts are those (the oil tycoons) who in the short term will lose from the changes,
As tycoons, they have at their disposal the means to bring those who lack knowledge and information to a rule of faith,
Since believers do not rely on facts, any argument with them is... fruitless!
He didn't admit it, it's taking things out of context in the most blatant way, and if it's not true, there's no point in checking petitions. There are anti-evolution petitions that have been proven wrong and all signatories disavow them except those who work in Christian universities. There is only one thing - oil giants who invest a fortune in the mass media so that it will sow confusion and cause the thought that the issue is controversial. Apparently people are comfortable believing that the continuation of their wasteful way of life will not come at the expense of anyone. She will come - at the expense of their children.
And you ask who am I protecting? – about my children.
Father, don't be a pedagogue.
Those who oppose corrupt science are the scientists themselves
Here are 450 peer-reviewed publications that have nothing to do with heating and DTP
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/
There has been no heating for 15 years - the head of the Climate Research Institute in Brittany has already admitted this.
Who are you protecting? About the criminals as an example Al Gore and Pachouri
Il 6 - It is possible, and if you check the facts, you will find that US submarines indeed sailed about fifty years ago in the waters of the North Pole - but under the ice cover...
This week I was at a lecture by an Australian radio broadcaster who has a show about science. He explains that the attack by people like you on the very legitimacy of science, because of ideological reasons, as examples he gave warming, evolution, use of genetic engineering in plants, stem cells. They are no longer satisfied with attacking the specific science that opposes it, but begin to tattoo the very legitimacy of science to determine what is done in our lives.
You claim it's charlatan, so how do you explain that there is almost no scientific paper supporting cooling yet all the opponents of warming favor the mass media that have no peer review?
I am very honored because I cannot choose the sciences that are convenient for me. I have to defend the only science that exists - which describes the truth.
The whole issue of global warming is one big charlatan.
The public already knows this and so do the scientists
You are not doing your blog much respect.
In 1963 there were no oil giants investing billions in feeding the public with disinformation as there are today. Ideological massive science is not believed, not because the instruments are not accurate.
Strange, last summer was actually the coldest since the measurements at the North Pole began.
Precisely the reason for the melting of glaciers in the North Pole is related to the last two phenomena that are not at all related to the air temperature:
1. The temperature of the sea water (related to the currents of the oceans, and changing frequently is sometimes called the oscillation of the oceans).
2. The wind regime - the most dominant factor in connection with the Arctic ice circle. NOAA themselves announced that the summer of 2007 was particularly low in its ice extent due to a wind regime that pushed the ice mass (it floats on the surface of the water so the winds can move it) south into the warmer water.
And to the point - since 1998 there has been a slight decrease in the global temperature of about 0.2 degrees C.
And another anecdote that testifies to the quality of science today (this is politics, not science): in 1963, in the middle of the Arctic winter, submarines of the US Navy were sailing in open water at the North Pole (!). So what, then global warming was more severe?
1. It is certain that the earth is warming (assuming that we have not been played with the data... but objectively, millions of people are intimately familiar with the consequences already today).
2. We don't know why it heats up. The same reasons that are presented today, were presented about three decades ago as the reasons for... the cooling of the earth which had happened for three decades in a row until then. So the scientists expected an ice age for us (in the current situation we can only say "Hello".)
3. Also saying what the consequences will be in 50 years is a complete guess, if fifty years ago the world was in the process of chilling cooling, and now it is in the process of frightening warming.
4. Regardless of warming, our world is being damaged in so many other ways by all the crazy industrialization that needs to be addressed for our immediate quality of life, not for speculative future consequences. As someone who is allergic to dust and particles, a day of air pollution is a day when I can't go out, I can't breathe, literally. Like me, there are millions of other people around the world, and we would be very happy for the world to be cleaner. But you don't need to wave prophecies of rage for this. Simply focusing on the here and now, it will do the planet and its inhabitants a great favor immediately.
Lovely, it's a scientific report with data, go to the full report if you want. You can say that there is nothing to be done, and that the earth will burn and you will continue to drive on four by four, but you cannot deny the facts. It has nothing to do with budgets, they said it under Bush even though he opposed warming and they say it under Obama.
post Scriptum. NOAA is a completely separate authority from NASA. To some extent they even compete for space budgets. The fact that from a professional point of view both mean the same thing indicates that science is immutable.
nonsense.
There is no warming, they cut NASA's budgets, so they found another patent to get budgets = NOAA
My father, you are like the husband who refuses to hear about the betrayal.
Worse, there are influential people who think that if they decide there is no warming, because it is inconvenient for them to change habits.
http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=a28b07a102084d28785d2d933122ebb1&id=1687
Fossil fuel consumption is increasing, the Arctic Circle will become tropical, the area between the Circle of Capricorn and the Circle of Cancer will become a desert similar to the Sahara, this is what we leave to our descendants, and there is no compensating here and there.