POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real.
A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is warming at an unnatural rate.
The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made global warming is happening.
While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which most weather occurs.
This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained by a team led by Qiang Fu, of the University of Washington in Seattle.
His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about 0.2C (0.4F) per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder temperatures in the atmospheric layer above.
The findings, details of which are published today in the journal Nature, provide one of the final pieces of proof that global warming is taking place, and that it is a human-induced phenomenon.
Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges from a “little Ice Ageâ€. The tropospheric trend, however, is precisely what scientists would expect to see if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing it to heat up.
“I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well,†Dr Fu said.
Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “It will become that much harder for people to claim that the world isn’t warming and that the warming isn’t caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.â€
In their study, the Washington team examined atmospheric temperature data collected between January 1979 and December 2001 from satellites operated by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.
These satellites used instruments known as microwave-sounding units to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules, and thus to calculate the temperature.
The raw data for the troposphere, as measured by the instruments’ channel 2 setting, showed no pronounced warming trend.
Dr Fu realised, however, that about a fifth of the signal picked up on channel 2 in fact originated in the stratosphere — the higher level of the atmosphere between 10km and 50km above the Earth’s surface. This had skewed the data, as the stratosphere is known to be cooling rapidly.
“Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,†Dr Fu said.
His team then used measurements from weather balloons and from another channel on the microwave units to determine precisely how much of the channel 2 signal was coming from the stratosphere.
Once this stratospheric error was eliminated, the remaining data showed that the troposphere had indeed been warming, by about 0.2C (0.4F) a decade.
“This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,†Dr Fu said.
The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing. The research was funded by the US Government, through the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and Nasa.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures will rise by an average of between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.
Dr Hulme said that while the results further confirm the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made global warming is a proven phenomenon, he would be surprised if it were accepted by critics.
“I’m under no illusions that it will knock down the critics altogether,†he said. “In some quarters, people hold almost fundamentalist beliefs that are immune to carefully reasoned argument. A new paper that seems to take the legs away from one of their critiques may unfortunately not make much difference to their arguments.
“It is the totality of the evidence that has convinced the vast majority of experts that the planet is warming: surface temperature recordings, rises in sea level, retreating glaciers, shifting species domains.
“The compendium of evidence from all these different sources means the overwhelming majority of scientists feel justified in warning society about this.â€
Life evolves into species that can exploit a niche in the environment.
Evolution, being what it is, cannot think through what would be best for the environment. If an individual is more able to survive in an environment, it will have a greater chance of passing on its genes, thus propagating its own kind.
I simply agree with you there...if something about a creature is good, it will survive. Passing it's traits down. But can you really think that one cell made 10 million PLUS species?
http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=535 said:
I mean, surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth. Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. The problems stemming from the limits of current knowledge of species diversity are compounded by the lack of a central database or list of the world's species.
New species are still being discovered--even new birds and mammals. On average, about three new species of birds are found each year, and as recently as 1990, a new species of monkey was discovered. Other vertebrate groups are still far from being completely described: an estimated 40 percent of freshwater fishes in South America have not yet been classified.
Consciousness arises from the interactions of trillions of cells in our body, mainly our brain. It is nothing more than an illusion that has come to be aware of itself.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
If you're talking about Homo Sapiens Sapiens, then yes, you are correct, because this species has only lived for about 250,000 years. That is not enough time for an entirely new species to develop.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
Alright. A lion is born with a natural tendency towards increased muscle density. It is therefore faster, stronger, and better able to feed, thus survive, and thus reproduce, spreading its genes.
Or, a flatworm is formed with some slightly light-sensitive cells in its head (the beginnings of an eye). It is able to tell when larger creatures are near it that would possibly consume it, and is able to flee, increasing its chances of passing on the "eye" genes.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
That's what cells did for about two billion years. However, slight variations in its environment caused it to be able to reproduce in slightly different ways.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
By its very nature, evolution will produce mostly useless mutations, however, once in a while, it will produce a useful mutation.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
Consider what we knew about the world 100 years ago.
Consider what we knew 20 years ago.
Every day, our knowledge multiplies at an unbelievable pace. One day, we will finally answer that question.
I'll edit this later, no time now.
Personal experiences cannot be accepted as proof. Some people have experiences that there show them a holy place, others have experiences that indicate nothing.
There are any explanations, perhaps she was lying, in tune with the energy of the universe, she really did leave her body, who knows?
I'll edit this later, no time now.
