Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 07 2013

18:35

AGU Statement on Climate Change: Update

AGU Statement on Climate Change - revised and reaffirmed for 2013On Monday the American Geophysical Union (AGU) released a revised position statement on climate change, sending a clear message in its title: Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action.

Established in 1919 as a committee within the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the AGU was independently incorporated in 1972. The international non-profit now has more than 61,000 members working to further the understanding of Earth Science through the efforts of its member scientists and in cooperation with national and international scientific organizations.

Among the organization’s activities, the AGU regularly publishes peer-reviewed scientific journals and research papers as well as position statements aimed at providing scientific expertise on important policy issues related to Earth and space science.

The AGU first released its position statement on climate change in December of 2003. The statement was reaffirmed and revised in December of 2007 and again in February of 2012. The AGU Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine of it can be renewed as is, required modification or should be eliminated entirely. In March of 2012, the task force determined and update was required for its position statement on climate change prior to renewal. The updated statement was publicly released on Monday, August 5, 2013.

Says Gerald North,  chairman of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel:

“AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security. Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU Statement on Climate Change

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long- understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 

The post AGU Statement on Climate Change: Update appeared first on Global Warming is Real.

April 10 2012

20:24

Devastating Bat Fungus Invades From Europe

The fungus causes white-nose syndrome, a disease that has killed more than 5.5 million bats in North America since being discovered in a cave in upstate New York in 2006.
Sponsored post
5371 6093 500
rockyourmind, foods, 2010-2020.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
Reposted fromRockYourMind RockYourMind

September 16 2011

20:27

Q-and-A: The Quest of the Earth Scientist

Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, is eager to see big questions answered on humans' impact on climate change, forests and glaciers.

July 14 2011

02:05

One in 10 Species Could Face Extinction: Decline in Species Shows Climate Change Warnings Not Exaggerated, Research Find

ScienceDaily (July 12, 2011) — One in 10 species could face extinction by the year 2100 if current climate change impacts continue. This is the result of University of Exeter research, examining studies on the effects of recent climate change on plant and animal species and comparing this with predictions of future declines. Published in leading [...]

May 21 2011

03:07

Mass Extinction of Marine Life in Oceans During Prehistoric Times Offers Warning for Future

ScienceDaily (May 17, 2011) — The mass extinction of marine life in our oceans during prehistoric times is a warning that the same could happen again due to high levels of greenhouse gases, according to new research. Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner [...]
Reposted by02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

April 18 2011

02:23

Penguins That Shun Ice Still Lose Big from a Warming Climate

ScienceDaily (Apr. 11, 2011) — Fluctuations in penguin populations in the Antarctic are linked more strongly to the availability of their primary food source than to changes in their habitats, according to a new study published online on April 11  in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Funded in part by the Lenfest [...]

March 10 2011

22:00

February 02 2011

17:45

Wall Street Journal: Accurate 7% of the Time

93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change

Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the "Opposite Editorial" Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.

The WSJ's defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded "experts" out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.

Fair enough. But the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bullshit is still bullshit, even if it's in an editorial.<!--break-->

January 26 2011

11:57

Can You Have a Purely Economic Sputnik?

Last night, the president gave a speech that never directly mentioned the most pressing science-based issue of our time—global warming, climate change. I don’t like being so right in my prediction: Even I thought he’d say it once or twice at least.

At the same time, however, he announced a new national love affair with science, innovation, and clean energy, using a playbook that seems right out of the National Academy of Sciences’ now famous 2005 Rising Above the Gathering Storm report. And he capped it all off with a line of almost mythic potential: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”

Could it really be? And can this approach—save the climate, the country, the economy, and pretty much everything through technological innovation—deliver on its own?<!--break-->

First, let’s recap what happened following the Soviet launch of Sputnik. It really did create a boom of investment in the sciences in the U.S., which in turn drove prosperity—but it was an investment centrally impelled by fear of an external enemy. As I wrote with Sheril Kirshenbaum in our book Unscientific America:

The first Earth-orbiting satellite, beeping at us from above, inspired stark fears about our national security and competitiveness: Were we falling behind in technology? Would the Soviets fire on us from the skies, and if they tried, could we stop them? As Senator Lister Hill, an Alabama Democrat, put it, the nation had experienced “a severe blow, some would say a disastrous blow, at America’s self-confidence and at inner prestige in the world.” If the Soviets beat us to the moon, added sci-fi visionary Arthur C. Clarke, “they will have won the solar system, and theirs will be the voice of the future…As it will deserve to be.”

This is the context in which the National Science Foundation's previously paltry research budget achieved liftoff, and in which NASA was created to power us to the moon. This is the context in which graduate students were given generous funding—under the National Defense Education Act—to pursue science and engineering careers. This is the context in which we renewed focus on science education in schools.

Essentially, President Obama wants us to recreate the same sense of urgency, and the same national unity, but without the same fear of another competitor country, unless that country is supposed to be China—which, the President noted, recently “became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.” Okay, that’s something of a spur…but it is not, historically speaking, a Sputnik. (And, making China into the enemy is a very problematic notion.)

Obama wasn’t even speaking in a national security frame last night when he invoked Sputnik. He was speaking in an economic one. The sense of shared threat was displaced from an external other to our own economic problems—joblessness and deficits.

And that’s the real trick: Is the yearning for national unity, in the wake of Tucson, enough to overcome this chief non-parallel in Obama’s Sputnik analogy? Because undoubtedly, investing in more clean energy research, and more research in general, will spur jobs and innovation. But will we remember to forget our differences in the meantime? Is there some glue that will hold us together? Given the way politics now operate in the U.S., it’s hard to be so optimistic.

Already, you can see how the push for inspiration and unity requires papering over really serious and divisive problems. Last night, for instance, president Obama didn’t just ignore climate change (which is at least kind of understandable, in the sense that we can’t pass a law to deal with it in the next two years). He also threw together wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and even “clean coal” as the clean energy sources that he wants us living off by 2035. Well, it’s a nice notion, but for the moment clean coal remains an oxymoron, and there are reasons to suspect it may always be.

Don’t get me wrong—it was a deeply inspirational State of the Union, and I continue to be amazed at just how much this president understands and also adores science. And the Sputnik analogy remains powerful, because it does evoke a moment in the U.S. past where the country really proved its mettle--as it must again.

Let’s hope that’s where the analogies begin, rather than where they end.

January 03 2011

23:46

Fred Singer: When Promoting Doubt, Make Stuff Up!

The reliably unreliable Dr. S. Fred Singer has gone from manipulating statistics for the purposes of disinformation to merely making stuff up - claiming, on the basis of no evidence whatever, that 40% of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming.

Absent anything beyond Singer's self-serving guess, this must be dismissed as hogwash. A University of Illinois survey conducted a year ago put the number of scientists convinced of humankind's effect on global warming at between 82 and 90 per cent. A National Academy of Sciences survey reported last summer that it was closer to 97 per cent.

Singer's egregious misrepresentation is made yet worse by being promoted by a libertarian front group called the National Association of Scholars. This name, by strange coincidence, results in the same acronym (NAS) as the National Academy of Sciences, raising the possibility that unsuspecting readers might mistake Singer's latest craziness for an actual, credible scientific survey.<!--break-->

Singer fans (and I use the term, sardonically, sarcastically - contemptuously) will recall his participation in the Oregon Petition, in which the pathetic old Dr. Fred Seitz - once a President of the National Academy - was induced to sign a cover letter for a ridiculous solicitation for signatures from people who might pass themselves off as scientists and would agree that climate science is just too darn confusing to explain what has been happening in the last several decades.

Anyone who would yet imagine that Dr. S. Fred has a spec of credibility should read George Monbiot's still-hilarious account of Singer (and/or his ex-wife) making up statistics about melting glaciers. Or, for the full expose on how complicit Singer has been in denying the health risks of second-hand smoke, coal-fired generators, chlorofluorocarbons, DDT, asbestos or CO2, you should go snap up a copy of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt: it reveals the man at his worst.

(H/T to RealClimate's Michael Mann for disinterring this latest, stinky Singerism)

November 11 2010

22:05

New Research Shows Increased Risk of Wildfire from Global Warming


Climate change will lead to more wildfiresTwo research scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies have recently concluded a study showing that climate change could likely become the principal driver for future wildfires if current CO2 levels continue to rise unabated.

Since the start of the industrial revolution, human activity – such as setting and suppressing wildfires – has been a primary driver in wildfire trends. Using new techniques to track fires, researchers Olga Pechony and Drew Shindell have developed the first long-term history of global wildfire patterns and trends. Using the historical information and satellite data, the team has forecasted fire trends to 2100, based on current and expected levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The study finds that without significant reductions of carbon, climate change will become the principal driver of wildfires in the coming decades, with rising temperatures and drought leading to a propensity of more intense and frequent fires.

Pechony and Shindell said that wildfire trends will vary regionally (as is to be expected), with decreases in some areas and increases from 5 to 35 percent in others – particularly in the western and southern United States, Australia, northern parts of Asia, and the southern tip of Africa.

Given this evidence, Pachony suggests increased awareness and education about wildfires are a prudent course of action:

“It’s likely that we will not only have to reduce emissions, but also improve strategies to prevent and suppress fires,” she said.

The research was published last month in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences

Sources and further reading:
Arizona Daily Sun
Sierra Journal
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

22:05

New Research Shows Increased Risk of Wildfire from Global Warming


Climate change will lead to more wildfiresTwo research scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies have recently concluded a study showing that climate change could likely become the principal driver for future wildfires if current CO2 levels continue to rise unabated.

Since the start of the industrial revolution, human activity – such as setting and suppressing wildfires – has been a primary driver in wildfire trends. Using new techniques to track fires, researchers Olga Pechony and Drew Shindell have developed the first long-term history of global wildfire patterns and trends. Using the historical information and satellite data, the team has forecasted fire trends to 2100, based on current and expected levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The study finds that without significant reductions of carbon, climate change will become the principal driver of wildfires in the coming decades, with rising temperatures and drought leading to a propensity of more intense and frequent fires.

Pechony and Shindell said that wildfire trends will vary regionally (as is to be expected), with decreases in some areas and increases from 5 to 35 percent in others – particularly in the western and southern United States, Australia, northern parts of Asia, and the southern tip of Africa.

Given this evidence, Pachony suggests increased awareness and education about wildfires are a prudent course of action:

“It’s likely that we will not only have to reduce emissions, but also improve strategies to prevent and suppress fires,” she said.

The research was published last month in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences

Sources and further reading:
Arizona Daily Sun
Sierra Journal
Glenwood Springs Post Independent

July 30 2010

02:13

SolveClimate: EPA Rejects 10 Petitions Charging Climate Science is Flawed

SolveClimate's David Sassoon reports on the EPA's finding that climate deniers are full of hot air:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 endangerment finding which said that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment.

EPA found no evidence to support the claims of the petitions which assert that a conspiracy invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. On the contrary, EPA’s review of the petitions found that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.

“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

“Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

Head over to SolveClimate for the rest of this story.<!--break-->

June 26 2010

01:22

Aggressive Action to Reduce Soot Emissions Needed to Meet Climate Change Goals, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625101110.htm ScienceDaily (June 25, 2010) — Without aggressive action to reduce soot emissions, the time table for carbon dioxide emission reductions may need to be significantly accelerated in order to achieve international climate policy goals such as those set forth in last December’s Copenhagen Accord, according to a study published online June 21 in the Proceedings [...]

June 19 2010

01:12

Court Holds Off Yet Another Attempt by Polluter Industries to Deny Science

Earthjustice.org Polluter industries continue to wage baseless attacks on EPA’s global warming finding June 18, 2010 Washington, DC — On the heels of the Senate’s recent vote on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of global warming pollution, a federal court on Wednesday put on hold industry suits attempting to challenge EPA’s scientific finding that global warming pollution endangers [...]

May 19 2010

14:27

National Research Council Calls for Climate Action

The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, says in three reports that there is an overwhelming case for a harmful human influence on the global climate and argues for strong and immediate action to limit emissions of climate-altering gases, in the United States and around the world.

May 07 2010

20:06

Esteemed Scientists Hit Back at Climate Denier Campaign In Science Letter

255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, have penned a letter in Science slamming the disinformation campaign orchestrated by a small network of climate deniers that has confused the public about the real danger of climate disruption.

The scientists’ letter, published in the May 7th issue of the journal Science (subscription req'd), says:

"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular."

The scientists note that the fundamental science of climate change is sound, despite the extensive campaign by deniers and skeptics to confuse politicians and the general public:
 
"There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend."
<!--break-->
Noting that denier attacks are “typically driven by special interests or dogma,” the scientists rail against the overblown attacks on the IPCC for its minor mistakes: 

"Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change…”


In a clear rebuke of the efforts of GOP climate deniers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK to deny reality), the scientists call for an end to the harassment of climate scientists:

"We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."

As Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute and one of the co-signers of the letter, notes:
“It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial.”

The scientists conclude with an appeal for action to address climate change:

"Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively."

The letter is available at Science (subscription required), and reprinted at The Guardian and Climate Progress for open access.

May 05 2010

07:27

Limiting Global Warming: Variety of Efforts Needed Ranging from ‘Herculean’ to the Readily Actionable, Scientists Say

ScienceDaily (May 4, 2010) — Major greenhouse gas-emitting countries agreed in December climate talks held in Copenhagen that substantial action is required to limit the increase of global average temperature to less than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).   In a paper appearing May 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), [...]

March 03 2010

23:36

Scientists Slam Lawmakers Attempt to Block EPA Regulation of Emissions


In an effort to dissuade congressional leaders to halt their anti-science campaign opposing the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson late last year specifying carbon emissions as a risk to human health and welfare, more than 500 scientists have signed a letter urging Congress to oppose resolutions seeking to reverse that finding.

Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the letter says in part

Because the EPA's finding is based on solid science, this amendment also represents a rejection of that science. The EPA's endangerment finding is based on an exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research showing a clear threat from climate change."

The letter further urges Congress to…

…oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming." Adding that "Because EPA's finding is based on solid science this amendment also represents a rejection of that science."

At least 10 international science academies and 18 scientific organizations within the US, including the National Academy of Sciences, support the underlying science upon which the EPA's finding is based, scientists say in the letter.

Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program for the UCS said:

These resolutions not only threaten public health, they would force Americans to spend more on gasoline by rolling back new vehicle standards that will save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump" said Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program at UCS. "Congress should be protecting public health and listening to the best science, not sending more money overseas for oil."

Americans spend $13 million dollars every minute on foreign oil.

Following is the full text of the letter: (or see the pdf version with the complete list of signatories)

Protect the Clean Air Act:

A letter signed by 569 U.S. Scientists

Dear Congress,

We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. This attack comes in the form of House and Senate resolutions that would reverse the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that global warming endangers public health and welfare. Because the EPA’s finding is based on solid science, this amendment also represents a rejection of that science.

The EPA’s “endangerment finding” is based on an exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research showing a clear threat from climate change. The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global warming will cause water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level rise, and an increase in the severity of extreme weather events.1

The most recent science includes findings that sea level rise may be more pronounced than the IPCC report predicted2 and that oceans will absorb less of our future emissions3.

Recently, 18 American scientific societies sent a letter to the U.S. Senate confirming the consensus view on climate science and calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases “if we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.” The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and ten international scientific academies have also released such statements.4 Unfortunately, these resolutions would force the EPA to ignore these scientific findings and statements.

The CAA is a law with a nearly 40-year track record of protecting public health and the environment and spurring innovation by cutting dangerous pollution. This effective policy can help address the threat of climate change – but only if the EPA retains its ability to respond to scientific findings. Instead of standing in the way of climate action, the Senate should move quickly to enact climate and energy legislation that will curb global warming, save consumers money, and create jobs. In the meantime, I urge you to respect the scientific integrity of the EPA’s endangerment finding by opposing Senate and House attacks on the Clean Air Act.
Sincerely,

—————-
1 IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). S. Solomon et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA. More than 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 reviewing experts from more than 130 countries contributed to AR4.
2 Stroeve, J. Marika M. Holland, Walt Meier, Ted Scambos, and Mark Serreze (2007) Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L09501, Doi: 10.1029/2007gl029703
3 Canadell, J.G., C. Le Quéré, M. R. Raupach, C. B. Field, E. T. Buitenhuis, P. Ciais, T. J. Conway, N. P. Gillett, R. A. Houghton, and G. Marland. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
4 A list of these scientific societies and academies and links to their statements is available at http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

12:23

World-Class Protection Boosts Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222100815.htm (Feb. 24, 2010) — Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is showing an extraordinary range of benefits from the network of protected marine reserves introduced there five years ago, according to a comprehensive new study published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences. The scientific team, a ‘who’s-who’ of Australian coral reef scientists, describe [...]
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
(PRO)
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

close
YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...