Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts. But a new report, based on an analysis of infrared long-wave radiation data from two different space missions, may change their minds. "These unique satellite spectrometer data collected 27 years apart show for the first time that real spectral differences have been observed, and that they can be attributed to changes in greenhouse gases over a long time period," says John Harries, a professor at Imperial College in London and lead author of the study published today in Nature.
As the sun's radiation hits the earth's surface, it is reemitted as infrared radiation. This radiation is then partly trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)¿as well as water vapor. Satellites can measure changes in the infrared radiation spectrum, allowing scientists to detect changes in the earth's natural greenhouse effect and to deduce which greenhouse gas concentrations have changed.
The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft¿the NASA's Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover. The findings indicated long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2, ozone (O3) and CFC 11 and 12 concentrations and, consequently, a significant increase in the earth's greenhouse effect.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentIf it's not Global warming then it's a island of trash in the north pacific twice the size of Texas people take off your blind-folds....We as Humans and the people before us have abused the earth long enough...It's time to stop....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it obvious? People like Al Gore want the money that they receive for personal gain. THERE IS NO TANGIBLE PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING!!! Greenies need to realize that they are backing a cause that is harming other people. The tax money paid gets to go to people like Al Gore so they can continue to make stuff up. I won't deny that I am a devout Republican. It still doesn't change why we should have to pay for people to lie to us and care more about polar bears and beachfront property than homeland security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm currently working on a degree in advanced energy, fuel cells, etc. and I have to say that I think a lot of you people on both sides are really missing the point of these environmental issues. Both sides, as usual, are treating this as a political football game; all you're doing is rooting for your favorite team or slamming the opposition. Doing this is grade school, black and white generalizing and it diminishes the argument of BOTH sides (as though there were really even two.) It shouldn't be about your "stupid team" winning, it should simply be about EVERYONE paying attention to what's going on and reacting accordingly. Sifting through the information and continuing to collect it for future reference. I myself am not all that concerned with "global warming." I'm not denying or confirming it as a natural or manmade creation (all though I think that both play a part;) I'm saying that it's way too broad and lacks many good specifics and it's way too easy for the average joe and the well informed alike to misinterpret the data that's out there. Yes I know, sacrilege. I'm much more concerned with energy independence (politically, financially, and as a homeland security issue,) cleanliness of specific areas (like big cities full of smog, yes because of humans, sorry but smog... not a natural occurrence) and the promotion of newer and better ideas involving transportation and energy generation. I am very much against food as a fuel source, I think it's stupid and wasteful, I'm not worried about what third world countries are burning for heat and light as it pales in comparison to the US, Europe and ESPECIALLY China, I am very much pro-nuclear as an alternative energy source (many advanced/alternative energy students and supporters actually are) and I am very realistic about the fact that we will probably have to continue using things like coal and gasoline as we have all become dependent on these items and even more so on the freedoms and comforts they give us. And forget Al Gore. I beg you. Last time I checked, he is not a scientist. Science should be about finding the truth no matter how much we like or dislike that truth and not as a means of political ammunition. And f**k all 24 hour American news channels! Try reporting the news and facts on such topics for once and not your opinions. You're just confusing EVERYBODY! As a matter of fact, stop watching 24 hour news all together. I'm pretty sure it's bad for the environment:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn point and well said!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProof is a tough taskmistress, and, with this issue, the claims of such are premature - to say the least. There are too many "wannabe" scientists that are ready to tack on a Q.E.D. to their argumentation, when it should be a N.E.D. (Not Enough Done) - at least not yet.
On point and well said!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProof is a tough taskmistress, and, with this issue, the claims of such are premature - to say the least. There are too many "wannabe" scientists that are ready to tack on a Q.E.D. to their argumentation, when it should be a N.E.D. (Not Enough Done) - at least not yet.
Isnt evironmental research supposed to consider all the factors in coming to a truely setpoint to judge the results, the "adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover" kind of takes only the results favorable to your cause, not real science, show the complete picture and allow the data from same speak for itself. not that of adjusted and picked over data bits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are in heated debate on the topic of global warming. Whether it's caused by human or nature, or even whether it is valid at all. Scientists on both sides try so hard to prove the opposite a liar, while Al Gore is constantly criticized for unscientific claims. I won't say I and for or against on the issue of global warming. But, what's the point of arguing? We don't reduce our consumption of natural resources just because the earth gets a bit warmer and some coastal cities gets drowned. Forget about global warming. Tons of other issues are still caused by our relentless abuse of the earth. Air pollution, diminishing aquifers and land subsidence, electronic waste, urban encroachment, desertification, etc. We as human have done enough to the earth that it is suffering so badly. Some people may argue that environmentalists or what they call green hypocrites are exaggerating the problem, but honestly answer this question, every time you buy something or dump something, have you ever considered the impact on the environment? Yeah, maybe solar wind is the true culprit of global warming, but does that justify the people who drive SUVs everyday to work, alone? Does that justify the people who eat excessive meat all day and then spend a lot more money in losing weight and seeing doctors? Does that justify the people who drive a private jet just to try out a restaurant in London and then fly back to New York to work the next day? Does that justify the people in developed countries who waste so much food, energy, and natural resources just to fulfill their never ending desires? Carbon dioxide and methane may not be a problem, but increasing demand for Brazilian beef is threatening the Amazon and all of its residents (including the people there). Increasing production and usage of cars has caused pollution to the air, water and land so much that our health becomes a major issue. Growing global consumption of energy is speeding up the exhaustion of fossil fuel, and war will intensify because of this (just look at the case of Iraq). What more evidence do we need? Forget about global warming, without it our earth is still bad enough; it is time to control our greed. If you dont believe in carbon footprint, fine. Just look at how much land and water are polluted, how many species are endangered, and how many people are ruthlessly ripped off just because you need to continue your normal life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in a city and will continue to do so. Living in a cave and picking berries from the bush is not for me, but as a citizen living in a developed world, I believe that we hold the responsibility to mend the damage we have done in pursuit to a so called better living standard , or at least, not let the damage get worse. Having a simpler life style doesnt always mean a worse one. We now live a highly urbanized and developed world, but are we any happier than our grand-grand parents of the past? Guys, cut the BS and wake up NOW. It is just pointless to argue over whether we should cut emissions or not. NOTHING can justify uncontrolled and unmonitored urban development.
We're blaming CO2 for a problem we don't understand. We do know Water Vapor is the most abundant and by an order of magnitude (at least) most effective so called "greenhouse" gas. Can we please have an honest discussion about the cause of climate change??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we please have an honest discussion about climat change? Carbon Dioxide is NOT the reason. How about the most abundant, and most effective (by an order of magnitude) so called "greenhouse" gas.... Yes, the one we don't talk about -- Water Vapor. While the climate warms, we continue to water the deserts....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it true 2008 was colder then the past dozen years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaims of "proof" need to differentiate between proof of a change in temperature, and a causative link to human activity (vs. one that humans can't control). Evidence of 1500-year cycles, geothermal causation, and all the other evidence won't dissuade the ROOT behind all this hype: i.e. the misanthropic tree-huggers who hate all technological development-- while pushing utopian fantasy-visions of "harmonious" commune-dwelling-- and thus want to PUNISH human development and prosperity: like Dick Cheney with terror-suspects, they'll torture the facts until they get whatever answer they want, and then yell "PROOF!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisALL claims need to be balanced against such political hype and caterwauling.
As for nuclear, there IS a problem with excess energy-potential in the event of an accident, however unlikely; but this can be solved by simply reducing active fuel-amounts to safe levels, and replacing fuel continually as necessary, with new fuel kept at a safe distance. This way, an accident simply wouldn't have enough potential energy to produce any harm.
Likewise, private insurance should mollify any concerns, since private insurors calculate risk on cost-benefit basis, in order to force plant-owners to balance profit with risk-management, in a way that realistically reflects and adequately under-writes actual concerns.
"We as Humans and the people before us have abused the earth long enough...It's time to stop...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's this type of "Chiclen Little" political sentiments, which need to be recognized (and disregarded), before self-proclaimed "scientists" can be allowed to simply torture the facts, until the desired answer is confessed-- such the absurd notion that increasing "greenhouse-gas" levels by a few PPM, can create a DECIMAL change in temperature-scales, while throwing out all the other evidence of natural and cyclical causes, straining out gnats and swallowing camels. The misanthropic hippies would ban fire and the wheel, pushing civilization back to the trees-- and eventually back into the sea-- in an hysterical display of reverse-Darwinism. Such irrational fear-mongering cannot be allowed to foist junk-science on a gullible public in order to create a destructive panic that the sky is falling. Just because the Earth is warming, doesn't mean we shouldn't keep cool HEADS, and demand accuracy in the 3 "F's" of science: facts,figures and formulas. From the data claimed by the left regarding the effect of CO2 levels, Mars should be warmer than Miami.
if glbal warming is real,why am i freezing my ass of up here in NH it'snowing outside NE&tn are playing foot ball in a blizzard.why isn't cape cod ma under water,why arn't the atol's in the south pacific under water.also there are more polar bears than here were 25 tears ago.i beleive global warming is a multi nation conspiracy against it';s citizen's and a way to tax us to death,show me the proof were is it warmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, the global temperatures have been increasing since just before industrial activity really kicked off but have been decreasing for the past decade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CO2 levels are still increasing, though they should start to decrease when the ocean starts to cool.
infowars.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswearechange.org
learn what's really happening...
wow, this site is awesome!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
thank you!!!
Something as important as the changing world climate, at least the visible fact of receding ice and likely changes in ocean currents and temperatures, gets my attention. Not helpful, to me, is the sarcasm and put-down language. The idea of being "stewards" of the earth's resources doesn't have to be religious to have merit. Will this 'generation' leave it a better world??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you mean "peddled on us"? Scientists did not make global warming into a political event, the public (you) did and the mostly conservative congressmen YOU elected. Global warming is real, the "proof" that its not is just propaganda from the coal and oil industry who want to stay in power. Oh, and fyi, not only does "Clean Coal" NOT exist, almost no fossil fuels will exist past 2050.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may get colder where you live instead if warmer because global warming is more accurately climate change. The weather will change dramaticly all around the world if we keep doing what were are doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo am I to understand that each time we exhale (CO2), we are causing global warming? Or that each time fog (water vapor) occurs, it is causing global warming? Or that cow flatulence (CH4) is causing global warming? I'm afraid you will have to provide MUCH more specific, empirical and convincing information before I or most ANY other rational, intelligent person will believe this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you eliminate the effects of cloud cover you have left the real world where cloud cover is a very potent energy reflector. Analysis of more recent satellite data indicates that cloud cover is a significant driver of tempeture. Also the way the clouds work with so called iris effect clouds creat a negitive feedback and tend to limmit temperature rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the arguments as to cause may be credible so are arguments to the remedy. However very few are willing to craft a reasonable soloution. Most involve special intrests...mostly BIG MONEY at the expense of the rest of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sucking sound is far to important to be ignored. We let it happen with NAFTA and MOST FAVORED NATION and now you want to do it again with CHINA again, india and the rest of the third world? A real verifiable with TEETH treaty not one with randsome payments to tyrants and communists with no binding agreement will do. I'll take my chances when the playing field is even and not before. Multinationalks as usual are the driving force here. You guys just don't get it.
From all the BS you try to sell only the last sentence makes sense. Nuclear energy is an important part of the solution but it's not the only one. The problem with people of your kind is that your'e looking for one solution when the reality asks for a plethora of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice guy doing "two" speeches of different topics!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do I sense than some other guy wrote them for him?
Well, I guess Big Oil is involved...
The second about Nuclear energy is on the other hand, interesting, self regenerating nuclear power plants, do they exist?
The link to this comments comment is incoorect. It should be linked to "Winkersons" two elaborate and doubtful posts...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a non-scientist but an informed student and professor familiar with science theory, I wonder how all these deniers square their dissents with the overwhelming fact that the Earth is undeniably heating. Very few scientists deny this. The question is how much human burning of fossil fuels contributes to it. The answer likely lies in the rate of global warming increase, which is much faster than any natural climate change model would predict.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second issue is the consequences of being wrong. If global warming is not influenced much by human sources, then curbing those sources will indeed incur major costs and impacts on all nations, but there will be little damage to the planet and most societies will benefit from weaning themselves from high fossil fuel consumption. This also stimulates alternative fuel development, which can benefit all societies.
It is important to remember that science's proofs are statistical and mathematic, always open to correction and refinement and do not have the character of a "truth" as in geometry (QED) or philosophy (truth claim) or religion (faith claim). Repeated facts (data) supporting a theory verify that theory, even if some data show variations in the results. This does not nullify the theory. Contrary data can actually reinforce the theory if they follow the lines of the general hypothesis being tested.
Finally, key theories, which over time become the sources of new theories and discoveries, can become laws, or general principles that describe the bases of natural phenomenon, such plate tectonics or more controversial genetic mutation, evolution, and biological and environmental change. Remember that there are still deniers of these verified theories and the laws they imply. Finally the weight of data and theory resolve the quandary, though deniers hold onto their claims beyond all scientific reasoning.
Therefore, it would seem incumbent upon serious deniers to stop making political attacks on human-caused global warming theory and its proponents and demonstrate the errors in the bulk of data that supports human sources of global warming. This I argue would be difficult to accomplish.
How do you know if it is global warming ? What if it's like another 'ice age' ? Maybe us polluting the earth's atmosphere is just speeding along that process, and if that is the case we can't really do much about it, yes we can recycle if that helps the tiniest bit. but at the moment most people think that we should be worrying more about what's happening around the world at the moment for example, Africa needing more resources or people who live in slums or even people who are suffering from hurricanes/tornado's/tsunami's because we make the future so we want everyone to have that more of a chance of being in that future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice if you could include a source list. I don't really like believing articles I read, especially on the internet, without legitimate sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell relax people this is just like chicken little
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"THE SKY IS FAILING"
THINK FOR A MIN. RIGHT NOW WE ARE COLDER THAN WHEN THE NORSE FARMED GREENLAND. LITTLE MORE THAN 200 YEARS IT SNOWED IN NEW YORK IN AUGUST. YEAH ITS GETTING WARMER BUT
WE MAY HAVE HELPED IT ALONG BUT EARTH MAY HAVE STARTED ALREADY TO WARM UP. WELL WE HAVE PEOPLE WORRYING ABOUT WATER? WHEN IT WARMS UP IT RAINS MORE AND PLANTS GROW FASTER.
1.FLOOD CONTROL CAN BE USED TO SPREAD RAIN WATER TO AREA'S WHERE IT IS NEEDED.
2.HOME FUEL CELL TO POWER THE HOME WOULD CUT DOWN ON THE NEEDS FOR BIG POWER PLANTS AND WE COULD START WITH NATURAL GAS THEN TO HYDROGEN.
3. SAME WITH CARS.
INFRASTRUCTURAL ITS EASY COMPANIES WILL CHANGE IF PUSHED. MONEY IS WHAT THEY WANT THEY WILL CHANGE. PEOPLE FOR GET THAT THERE WERE NO GAS STATIONS WHEN CARS FIRST CAME OUT. ITS SIMPLE NOT HARD
BUT FEAR MONGERS JUST GO NUTS
THINK POOH BEAR