Blogs

Blogger exposes fake global warming skeptics

Hank Green — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:36:15 PDT

Kevin Grandia, who we are proud to be well-acquainted with through working together in the eco-blogosphere, has just been through a bit of a saga.

Curious about the Heartland Institute's list of "500 prominent scientists" who deny global warming, Kevin decided to contact some of the folks on the list.

He put together a list of 150 email addresses ... simply the addresses he found it most easy to acquire. After only 24 hours, he'd received 45 emails from angry scientists saying that they, in no way, denied anthropogenic global warming.

It turns out that the Heartland Institute had never told the scientists they were going on the list, nor did they check to see if these people actually had any doubts about the causes of climate change. Just a sampling of quotes from emails Kevin received:

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

"I have NO doubts ... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

"Please remove my name. What [they] have done is totally unethical!"

The Heartland Institute has been publicizing this list for years, and not a single journalist took the time to check the names on the list. The Heartland Institute has now distanced itself from the list and withdrawn its claim that the institute is supported by 500 prominent global warming skeptic scientists.

But the institute has yet to apologize.

Kevin deserves a great big "thank you" from the world. Check out DeSmogBlog and, if you think he's as awesome as I do, you might even consider donating to help him keep DeSmogBLog alive.

Measuring March

Tim Liotta, Managing Editor, Forecast Earth — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:56:33 PDT

In the long run, the debate will argue whether March served as a pause or a turning point on the road of evidence of climate change and the planet's recent warming trend. The 50 cities measured against their historical average by the Forecast Earth Temperature Index produced an average gain in March of less than two-tenths of a degree, far below the average gain of +1.48 degrees seen this past winter.

Wild swings of unseasonable warm and cold weather also fell off in March, as temperatures did a much better job of clinging to their historical averages - 18.8 percent of the month's readings checked in within 2 degrees, plus or minus, of their historical counterparts. During the months of January and February, just 11.6 temperature readings measured within that spread.

Index cities recording monthly averages above their historical measurements outnumbered their colder counterparts 27-23.

Caribou, Maine, dealt with the coldest March compared to its history, with its month's worth of temperatures averaging -5.5 degrees against the norm recorded in the National Climate Data Center Daily Normals (1971-2000). Madison, Wisconsin (-3.8), Detroit (-3.2) and Minneapolis-St. Paul (-3.1) were also among the coldest cities vs. history in March.

Washington, D.C., which measured out to be the warmest Index city (+8.2) compared to its historical average during the 91 days of winter, continued as the Index's warmest city in March, with a +6.1 reading compared to history. Los Angeles (+4.4), Norfolk, VA (+4.3), Dallas (+4.2), and San Antonio (+3.9) rounded out the five warmest cities.

Remember, there were 19 days of duplicated readings between the March and winter measurements.

The greenest way to die

Magnus Hølvold — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:21:38 PDT

We don't deal all that much with death on EcoGeek, but sometimes something comes along that captures our attention, interest and -- of course -- our morbid fascination. A way of processing corpses called resomation is one of those things. Veterinarians have been using a similar process for years now, but us humans are now finally getting in on the action.

Within a tank called a resomator, the body is immersed in a 1:21 solution of potash lye and water. Gas-powered steam generators build up pressure within the tank as the temperature rises up to around 170 degrees Celsius. Thanks to the pressure (and despite what the general news media would have you think) there is no boiling, only a chemical reaction that completely liquefies everything but the bone ash in our bodies. When the tank is opened, only the bone ash and any implants or prosthetics the person had remain.

Sounds pretty gruesome, eh? Why even do it, you may ask? Well, this is where our interest in this technology comes in.

Through talks with Sandy Sullivan,Â the founder of Resomation Ltd., I learned that an average cycle in this tank of three hours will consume around 90 kWh, while a cremation will consume 250 kWh. According to Mr. Sullivan, the total carbon footprint of a resomation is 18 times less than that of a cremation. Additionally, resomation is a 100% mercury-free process, something neither regular burial nor cremation can boast.

When the body has been fully liquefied, it has been separated into two main parts. The first is a bio-fluid that is basically a collection of all our building blocks: Salts, sugars, peptides, and amino acids. The nutrients in this liquid are still entirely intact and can be returned to the soil to help our plants grow.

The second is basically a "shadow" of your bones called bone ash, pure calcium phosphate. This can be used in horticulture, ceramics, and even as a raising agent! In other words, getting resomated allows you to fully return your body to the Earth without worrying about adding a bunch of unwanted stuff to the soil at the same time.

Like I said, any implants or prosthetics the person may have had are also left behind, and are in fact in pristine condition. With further sterilisation and repackaging, expensive prosthetics can be put back into use.

While what to do with these "leftovers" is still an open question, the folk at Resomation Ltd have considered donating them to third-world countries where such prosthetics would otherwise be completely unattainable.

So far, the process is only available in the United States, where more than 2,000 resomations have been performed so far, but the Glasgow-based company is only a year old, and Sullivan tells me that they are close to having the process specified as legal in the United Kingdom (bureaucracy at work!).

Many local authorities in the UK are having trouble taking care of their dead, what with the FBCA's regulations on mercury emissions. Additionally, several green groups are championing this tech all around the world.

Don't worry, you can still have a dignified ceremony that doesn't differ much from cremation. The body is placed in a quite ordinary coffin that is lined with a silk bag that seals to become an enclosed silk coffin within the resomator.

After the cycle, the soft bone ash can easily be powdered and put in an urn like you would after a cremation, with the added bonus that every single bit of ash is the body of the departed, not a mixture of whatever was in the furnace with the body.

I can even think of a few additions to the lowering of the ashes that would make the ceremony all the more meaningful, like fertilising the earth that surrounds our dearly departed's ashes with a vial containing their own bodily remains. One life gone, new life welcomed.

If you want to read more about the technology and the process, I suggest you check Resomation Ltd'.s official website or this very easy-to-read and accurate description of the process of resomation at Cremate Me.net.

News from the Antarctic

James Wang — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:08:25 PDT

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

This month, while Arctic sea ice hits its annual wintertime high (such as it is; see previous post), Antarctic sea ice reaches its summertime low.

Weâve written before about the British Antarctic Surveyâs report of a vast ice berg on the verge of breaking off the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Hereâs more on whatâs happening at the South Pole from NASAâs recent briefing on polar sea ice.

Although the Arctic and Antarctic are both at the Earthâs poles, theyâre not mirror images of each other. There are some fundamental differences between them. Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by an ocean, while the Arctic is basically an ocean surrounded by land.

Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic typically has little perennial sea ice. There are two main reasons:

Because there are no surrounding continents, Antarctic sea ice can float northward into warmer waters where it melts.
Because itâs at a lower latitude, Antarctic sea ice receives more direct sunlight and heat in summer.

Almost all the sea ice that forms during the winter melts during the summer.

Â Â Click to view Windows Media Viewer streaming video.

Also unlike the Arctic, which is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth, surface measurements and satellite data in Antarctica havenât revealed overall trends in temperature or sea ice area.

Warming and sea ice loss in some areas -- notably the Antarctic Peninsula, where the iceberg is breaking from Wilkins Ice Shelf -- have been balanced by little temperature change or even cooling and sea ice gain in other areas.

Still, that doesnât prove thereâs no warming trend in Antarctica. Satellite data has only been available since the 1970s. Earlier observations from whaling ships suggest that there was a greater sea ice area before satellite observations were available.

If Antarctica isnât warming -- or if itâs warming at a slower rate -- it may be due to the atmospheric vortex circulation that surrounds it (from being a land mass centered at a pole and surrounded by ocean). This tends to hold in cold air. But thatâs just one hypothesis that scientists are exploring.

Algae, algae, everywhere

Hank Green — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:41:43 PDT

I've been a little inundated by algae lately. First, I finished a chapter in Earth: The Sequel all about algae biodiesel, and then I ran across a profile of algae start-up Solena at the NYTimes.

And then I got an email from Sam at GreenFuelsForecast about its summary of the history and future of algae biofules. And just moments ago, Katie from Earth2Tech emailed me a story on the top 15 aglae start-ups!

Wow! Seems to me like March 2008 is algae's official tipping point!

The news, my friends, is good. Algae is the best plant out there for converting sunlight to energy. It's 100 times better at creating usable energy per acre than corn is.

And tons of new and old companies are trying different strains of algae and different ways of growing them and using them to clean the flue gas coming out of power plants.

Algae, it turns out, eat NOx emissions without trouble, and, of course, grow much faster in higher concentrations of CO₂. The only problems are sulfur dioxide, which can acidify the water (just like it does to rain) and kill the algae, and mercury, which can accumulate in the algae and make them dangerously toxic.

Welcome to the future, where single-celled plants eat our pollution and power our cars. Who'd a thunk ...

Watch a tree grow on Google Earth

Hank Green — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:43:11 PDT

You can't say there's anything wrong with paying someone to plant a tree in some corner of the Earth. But it's not exactly the most rewarding thing.

The buyer assumes the tree is out there, but it's quickly forgotten and impossible to actually imagine. But the World Wildlife Fund is hoping to chance that with a little help from Google Earth.

Your $5.50 donation will buy a tree, its lifelong care and feeding, scientific study of the forest that it becomes a part of, and the exact coordinates of where that tree is on our big beautiful planet. Linking that data with Google Earth shows the precise location of the tree on the island of Borneo, as well as the tree's hundreds of neighbors.

Unfortunately, the map resolution needs to be increased significantly before you can see your very own tree, but even now the context is nice.

You can buy trees that will be planted in Indonesia today at MyBabyTree.org. PayPal integration makes the whole thing a breeze.

I planted two of them myself and received the following message in my inbox:

Your baby tree will be planted in the next few days. Once that is done, we will mail you the exact location, and you will be able to see your tree on Google Earth.

Via Google Earth Blog and the WWF

Two key climate terms to know

Lisa Moore — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:23:16 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

Scientists use some technical terms in discussing climate change that can cause confusion. Two that are especially useful to know are "forcing" and "feedback."

Youâll hear these terms a lot in discussions of how human activity impacts climate -- and especially when the topic turns to the melting Arctic. If you know what they mean, youâll have a much better understanding of the dynamics behind climate change.

"Forcing" and "feedback" both refer to effects on the Earthâs climate system.

Climate changes when thereâs a change in climate systemâs energy balance -- the amount of energy absorbed from the Sun, versus the amount of energy radiated back into space from Earthâs lower atmosphere and surface. A process that changes this energy balance -- and thus the climate -- is called a "climate forcing".

Many things can cause climate forcing. Some, like shifts in the Earthâs orbit around the Sun or volcanic eruptions, are natural events. Others, like increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, are caused by human activities. Climate change caused by human activity is called "anthropogenic forcing."

A climate feedback is an indirect (or "secondary") change within the climate system that occurs in response to a forcing. For example, warmer air can hold more water vapor, and water vapor can trap more solar energy in the atmosphere, augmenting the warming effect. This is a positive climate feedback because the secondary effect is in the same direction as the primary effect -- both are warming.

Another example of a positive climate feedback occurs with sea ice, which is why you hear the term "feedback" in discussions of Arctic warming. As temperatures rise, sea ice melts and exposes open water. Water is darker than ice so it reflects less sunlight and absorbs more energy. This augments the warming effect, leading to more sea ice melting, and so on in a loop.

Climate feedbacks also can be negative, reducing the initial effect rather than augmenting it. For example, increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to warming can lead to more cloud formation. Thick low clouds can block sunlight from reaching the Earth by reflecting it back into space. This creates a cooling effect -- a negative climate feedback.

Positive climate feedbacks are dangerous because they can accelerate climate change towards tipping points, critical thresholds at which a small change qualitatively alters the state of some Earth system. For example, the Greenland Ice Sheet could start a slow but irreversible meltdown if global temperature rises above a tipping point, which scientists warn could be just 2Â°F above todayâs temperature.

Tipping points also can trigger climate feedbacks. For example, if the Earth warms enough to melt permafrost (a tipping point for the Arctic region), the melted ground can release greenhouse gases that, in turn, accelerate warming. In fact, studies show that methane emissions are increasing from areas of thawing permafrost in Siberia.

Sound scary? It is. This is why many scientists are pushing hard for legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Did global warming stop in January?

Lisa Moore — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:44:30 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

January 2008 was the coldest month in several years, according to the scientific groups that track global temperature. Is it true, as DailyTech concludes, that Januaryâs cold "wipes out a century of warming"?

Has global warming stopped?

In a word, no. A single month does not make for a climate trend. Letâs look at the data.

Source: Raw data from the U.K.âs Met Office Hadley Centre (see description of data).

This graph shows "temperature anomalies" -- that is, the variation from a long-term average of temperatures between 1961 and 1990. A temperature anomaly of zero would mean the temperature is exactly equal to the long-term average -- neither warmer nor colder. (For more on how scientists take the globeâs temperature, see our previous post.)

As you can see from the graph, temperatures are trending upward over time in a zigzag pattern, not unlike the stock market. A shallow dip is followed by an even greater rise. Short-term dips should not be mistaken for long-term trends -- in the stock market or in climate!

January 2008 (circled in red) is cooler than other months in the past decade, but still significantly warmer than previous decades. Global warming isnât likely to have stopped in January 2008 any more than it stopped in March 1976, December 1984, November 1992, or February 1994. These are all short-term dips in a long-term trend.

Global warming is a process that occurs over decades. It canât be proven or disproven by a single monthâs temperature.

How long do greenhouse gases last?

Lisa Moore — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:07:45 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

In a comment on my Global Warming Crib Sheet, johnmashey asked if I could say something about the lifetimes of greenhouse gases - that is, how long different greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere. Great idea! Hereâs a whole post on it.

Many people donât realize that the greenhouse gases we emit can stay in the atmosphere for decades, centuries or even millennia. Thatâs why itâs so important that we cap emissions as soon as possible.

Hereâs a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas	Lifetime (Years)	100-Year GWP
Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)	hundreds	1
Methane (CH₄)	12	25
Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)	114	298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF₃)	264	14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆)	3,200	22,800
PFC-14 (CF₄)	50,000	7,390

Source: Table 2.14 in the IPCC AR4 WG-I Report. Original table lists many more gases.

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is âhundreds of years,â rather than a specific number.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report defines a gasâs lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process.

Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO₂), is the hardest to pin down. When CO₂ is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades. The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I (AR4, WG-I) Executive Summary of Chapter 7:

About 50% of a CO₂ increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports:

Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO₂ because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate post "How long will global warming last?":

My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. Thatâs a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail.
If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

Global warming crib sheet

Lisa Moore — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:44:04 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

The science behind global warming is, well, science, and it can get pretty technical.

By how many degrees has the globe already warmed? How much more can it warm before weâre in trouble? How much carbon dioxide is in the air now, and how much more can we afford to emit before risking climate catastrophe? Which are the most important greenhouse gases? And what do all those funny abbreviations mean?

Below you will find a handy crib sheet that gives you all these numbers and more.

Temperatures

Two factors frequently confuse discussions of temperature:

What is the baseline temperature weâre comparing to, preindustrial or current?
Is the temperature scale Fahrenheit or Celsius?

And then thereâs the issue of "warming in the pipeline." Temperature may have warmed by only a certain amount today, but some additional warming is certain because warming lags behind greenhouse gas emissions.

First greenhouse gas concentrations increase, and then some time later warming occurs. The amount of future warming that is certain due to existing greenhouse gas concentrations is called "warming in the pipeline."

Discussions of global temperature often center around "tipping points" -- the points after which qualitative climate change become inevitable.

The most commonly cited of these is the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which would lead to a 20-foot rise in sea levels, so this is what is shown in the table below. (For more, see last weekâs post on "tipping elements.")

Warming	Temperature above Pre-industrial (Celsius)	Temperature above Pre-industrial (Fahrenheit)
Since pre-industrial	0.7	1.3
In the pipeline	0.6	1.0
Total commitment	1.3	2.3
Likely tipping point for Greenland Ice Sheet	2.0	3.6

Greenhouse gas notation

For the rest, letâs start with vocabulary. When you hit an abbreviation you donât understand, itâs hard to follow the rest of the discussion.

ppm	parts per million -- to describe atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
MMT or Mt	million metric tons or megatons -- to describe the amount of greenhouse gas emissions spewed into the atmosphere.
Gt	billion metric tons or gigatons -- equivalent to 1000 Mt
CO₂	carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas.
CO₂e	carbon dioxide equivalents -- to describe all greenhouse gases in terms of the warming potential of carbon dioxide (some greenhouse gases cause more warming, ton for ton, though there are less of them).

Greenhouse gas warming potentials

There are dozens of human-produced greenhouse gases, but the three that account for the most warming are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O).

Although CO₂ causes the most warming, thatâs because itâs the most prevalent, not the most potent. Methane and nitrous oxide have much higher warming potentials.

Greenhouse gas percents by volume

Greenhouse Gas (GHG)	Percent of Long-Lived GHGs	Warming Potential of Gas vs. CO₂	Percent Warming Caused by Gas
carbon dioxide	99.4%	1	62.9%
methane	0.5%	25	18.2%
nitrous oxide	0.08%	298	6.1%

Greenhouse gas concentrations

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drives global warming. Hereâs a table showing where weâve been, where we are, and where weâre headed if we continue with business-as-usual.

GHG Concentration (CO₂ or CO₂e)	Year	Notes
280 ppm CO₂	1750 (Preindustrial)	Â
383 ppm CO₂ or CO₂e	2008	Itâs approximately the same in CO₂ or CO₂e because of the cooling effects of "aerosols" (for example, the sulfate particles Bill discussed in his post on geoengineering). Â
450 ppm CO₂e	2040, in one business-as-usual scenario*	Gives a 50 percent chance of exceeding +2Â°C, a commonly cited tipping point for the Greenland Ice Sheet (see above).
1000 ppm CO₂	2100, in one business-as-usual scenario.*	Â

*See figures 10.20 and 10.21 in IPCCâs 4th Assessment Report. Note that these graphs show CO₂ only. Business-as-usual scenarios project that CO₂e could increase even more quickly than CO₂ alone.

Greenhouse gas emissions

These statistics are from 2005, which is the most recent data available.

Global emissions

CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels	28.2 Gt	CO₂
Emissions of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases	10.2 Gt	CO₂e
Emissions from deforestation (17% of total)	7.9 Gt	CO₂
Total greenhouse gas emissions	46.3 Gt	CO₂e

U.S. emissions

Total emissions: 7.2 Gt CO₂e
Increase since 1990: 16 percent

Emissions reductions

What emissions reductions are necessary to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 ppm? This table summarizes the cuts we need to make in the next few decades, though of course our efforts will have to continue beyond 2050.

Emissions cuts needed to stop warming

Year	Developed Countries	Global Emissions
2020	20 percent below 2005	Peak and begin to decline
2050	80 percent below 2005	50 percent below 2005

9 dangerous "tipping elements"

Lisa Moore — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:25:35 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

The term "tipping point" refers to a critical threshold at which a small change can qualitatively alter the state of a system. For example, when temperature reaches 32&Â°F, ice changes into water.

There also are "tipping points" in global warming. The best known is the Greenland Ice Sheet, which could begin a slow, irreversible meltdown if global temperature passes a certain threshold.

Last week, climate researchers published a paper that examines Earth systems in danger of passing tipping points due to human activity.

They call these "tipping elements" and highlight nine such systems from around the world. They say the greatest threat is to the Arctic, followed by the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Hereâs the list.

Arctic Summer Sea Ice
Critical Point: 0.5-2Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: High sensitivity/Small uncertainty

Sea ice extent is already decreasing, but total loss would devastate Arctic ecosystems. For example, polar bears, which use summer sea ice to hunt, would starve. Sea ice loss also can accelerate warming because ice is more reflective than open water. The authors warn that "a summer ice-loss threshold, if not already passed, may be very close and a transition could occur well within this century."
Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS)
Critical Point: 1-2Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: High sensitivity/Small uncertainty

A total meltdown of the GIS would eventually raise sea level about 20 feet. This studyâs range for the critical point is both lower and smaller than whatâs given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which estimated 1.3-4Â°C above present. The new estimate takes into account more recent research, including observations that both sea ice and ice sheets are melting faster than models predict.
West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)
Critical Point: 3-5Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Medium sensitivity/Large uncertainty

A collapse of the WAIS would eventually raise sea level about 15 feet. Although the estimated critical point for the WAIS is higher than for the GIS, the authors note that the range is "clearly accessible within this century" and that the WAIS is more likely to cause rapid sea level rise than the GIS.
Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC)
Critical Point: 3-5Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Low sensitivity/Medium uncertainty

THC refers to ocean circulation driven by density differences due to temperature and salinity (see this fact sheet for more). Significant slowing or a complete shutoff of circulation patterns in the Atlantic Ocean would affect regional climate patterns since THC transports heat from the tropics to Northern Europe. That doesnât mean Europeâs temperatures would plunge - the IPCC estimates it would simply warm less quickly - but itâs still a concern.
El NiÃ±o - Southern Oscillation
Critical Point: 3-6Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Medium sensitivity/Large uncertainty

El NiÃ±o causes warm water to move eastward so the Pacific Ocean releases more heat (see our previous post). Stronger El NiÃ±o events due to global warming would, for example, bring drought to Southeast Asia. This tipping element is interesting because the IPCC said there wasnât enough information to predict any particular change in El NiÃ±o patterns. The experts in this new study disagree, though they note that "the existence and location of any threshold is particularly uncertain."
Indian Summer Monsoon
Critical Point: Albedo above 0.5
Expert Assessment: Large uncertainty

The control parameter here is not temperature, but reflectivity (also called "albedo") which increases as a surface gets brighter. Land use change and aerosol pollution (for example, the sulfate particles Bill discussed in his post on geoengineering) can increase regional albedo, which weakens the monsoon. A decrease in monsoon precipitation could spell disaster for India, which depends on the rainfall for irrigation. The authors argue that the IPCC, which predicted an increase in monsoon precipitation, underestimated the effects of land use change and aerosols.
West African Monsoon
Critical Point: 3-5Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Medium sensitivity/Large uncertainty

Rainfall in Africaâs Sahara and Sahel regions could increase, leading to greening. This might harm plants and animals adapted to current conditions, but the societal impact could be very positive - a rare potential benefit of climate change.
Amazon Rainforest
Critical Point: 3-4Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Medium sensitivity/Large uncertainty

Warming could decrease precipitation and lengthen the Amazonian dry season, leading to forest dieback. Deforestation can accelerate warming, exacerbating the problem. The authors warn that land use change alone could bring the forest to a critical threshold.
Boreal Forest
Critical Point: 3-5Â°C above present
Expert Assessment: Medium sensitivity/Large uncertainty

Earthâs vast boreal forests cover the northern latitudes of Canada, Alaska, Europe and Russia. They store carbon, filter water, and support many rare and beautiful species. Boreal regions may become drier as temperatures rise, leaving these forests vulnerable to fire and disease.

This new study warns that weâre getting ever-closer to massive changes in key Earth systems, and that other tipping elements could surprise us. It gives us nine compelling reasons to cut emissions as much, and as soon, as possible.

2007: One of the warmest years on record

Lisa Moore — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:44:10 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

The results are in for 2007, and it was a warm one. How warm? It depends who you ask. According to NASA, 2007 was the second warmest year on record. NOAAâs analysis put it in fifth place. The University of East Angliaâs Climatic Research Unit (CRU) ranked it eighth.

The results differ because itâs not as straightforward as you might think to take the temperature of the globe. There are many subtleties to consider.

For one thing, how do you deal with that fact that temperature sensors arenât evenly spaced? Which temperature trend are you measuring -- just land, just ocean, or a combination of the two? And how do you handle "urban heat islands" -- the tendency of cities to become warmer than nearby rural areas?

Different research groups take different approaches. For example, NOAAâs map of temperature has grids of 1 degree latitude x 1 degree longitude. CRU, in addition to 1 x 1 degree grids, produces grids of 5 degrees latitude x 5 degrees longitude and 0.5 degrees latitude x 0.5 degrees longitude. And itâs not just about the grid. CRU doesnât extrapolate to include the Arctic, which is experiencing rapid warming; NASA does.

NASA scientists made two other observations to put 2007 in context. First, last yearâs warmth was "noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum." And second, the Pacific Ocean has shifted into a La NiÃ±a phase, when global temperatures are normally cooler than average. So 2007 should have been cooler than average, yet itâs one of the hottest.

Despite the complexities in measurement, scientists agree on two things. No matter which trend youâre looking at or how the data are processed, global warming is unequivocal. And this warming is caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases due to human activities. Itâs past time to cap our emissions!

Could it happen again?

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:28:53 PST

This is the fourth Mardi Gras since Hurricane Katrina struck the city of New Orleans and the U.S. gulf coast. Rebuilding projects continue, and some wonder if new levees will hold.

Scientists believe that hurricanes have become more frequent during the last century, and global warming is the likely culprit.

Even the most conservative scientific statements agree that human activity is significantly contributing to weather shifts, and we'll experience more extreme weather from now on. The American Meteorological Society predicts more intense precipitation and significant regional shifts in the patterns of rainfall. All of this may lead to persistent droughts and floods.

The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that increased rain plus melting glaciers will lead to rising sea levels. With so many people living on the coasts, more cities are threatened by storm swells and flooding ... just like Katrina.

California's capital of Sacramento currently lives with the greatest risk of flooding of any major American city. River levees were begun over 100 years ago, and not all of them have been upgraded.

The Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently declared that there's a 60% chance of a levee breach in some areas around the city. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (PDF) estimates that at least 230,000 residents would be displaced in such a disaster, and the flood damages could cost $11.2 billion.

That's just one place where a Katrina-like disaster could be on the horizon. Some towns have already seen unusual flooding, like parts of Ohio in 2007. If you live in a river plain, expect the unexpected from now on.

It's not only folks with a beach view who have to worry, thanks to global climate change. Just another reason we all need to do our part and reduce carbon emissions in our everyday lives.

As a precautionary measure, homeowners should look into buying flood insurance. If you live in a recognized flood-prone area, you may be required to get it by your mortgage lender.

Everyone should assemble an emergency preparedness kit. The Red Cross has a good list of supplies for adults and children. Gather canned food, bottled water, first-aid supplies, flashlights, batteries, and other basics in a central place in your home. Make sure each family member knows where it is, and check on the contents at least once a year to replace stale food and expired batteries. Don't forget about your pets either!

All this gear is handy to have no matter where you live -- natural disasters, blackouts, and other emergencies can happen any time. One of the lessons Hurricane Katrina unfortunately taught us is that we have to look out for ourselves and our neighbors.

Will he see his shadow?

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:18:22 PST

Skeptics scoff, but it's hard to deny that we've experienced some unusual weather in the past few years.

Groundhogs seem to agree.

February 2 is Groundhog Day, the annual predictor of six more weeks of winter or an early spring, depending on where the little rodent's shadow lies. So if you don't believe world-renown scientists, how about a cute fuzzy marmot?

The Daily Green has a new video from Glen, the Global Warming Groundhog, and he's pretty confused about what to predict. The wild weather of 2007 threw him for a loop. Hard to say what he and his ground-dwelling brethren can predict for this year...

Five ways to bring back the night

Cher Seruto — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:12:26 PST

Cher Seruto is an analyst with the Built Environment Team at Rocky Mountain Institute.Â

They are magnificent, present yet untouchable, the object of much affection. No, I'm not talking about celebrities. I'm talking about stars in the night sky.Â

This year, I spent the winter holidays backcountry skiing from a small hut in the national forests of southwestern Colorado, and the abundance of stars reminded me that I miss their presence in my city.Â

"Where did the night sky go?" I wondered.Â

We city dwellers often don't see many stars because of light pollution. Much of this obtrusive light is caused by excessive interior and exterior lighting from advertising, commercial properties, offices, factories, streetlights, sporting venues, and our own homes.Â

The effects of light pollution
It's very clear how development and light pollution are linked. NASA's night image of Earth (below) is proof enough.Â

Back on the ground, light pollution is pretty easy to spot too.Â

If you ever have the opportunity to look at the night sky from outside a city, scan the horizon. You can often see the direct effects of excessive lighting as a halo in the night sky.Â

When I lived in Santa Barbara, I would often walk the beach at night and look across the ocean. Instead of stars, I would see light emanating from the Los Angeles Basin 100 miles away. And at the Grand Canyon, you can see a similar halo from Las Vegas, 175 miles away.Â

Besides marring the view, light pollution wastes energy. The International Dark-Sky Association estimates that every year the United States wastes 110 billion kilowatt-hours, or $10.4 billion, on "ill-conceived, ineffective, and inefficient lighting."Â

Generating all that unneeded electricity to power those lights results in more greenhouse gas emissions that increase the threat of global warming.Â

Simple steps to reduce light pollution
With so much at stake, I'm happy to report that there are simple solutions to drastically reduce light pollution and save energy.Â

First, start at home:Â

Light only what you need. Ask yourself whether your lights are located in the right places for your daily needs.Â
Light only when you need it. Use motion sensors to cut your electricity bill, and be diligent about turning off lights that are not in use.Â
Light where you need it. Make sure that outdoor fixtures don't emit light upwards or excessively outwards. Proper lighting does not shine into the night sky or across to a neighbor's property.Â
Light in the right quantity. Look at the effects of your outdoor lights. Are shadows created that actually obstruct vision? Lower the wattage and you may be able to see better due to the reduction of shadows. I recently installed a lower wattage motion detector light outside my back doorstep and was amazed at the increase in visibility.Â
Check placement, curtains, and window coverings to make sure your indoor lighting is not shining out and up at night.Â

Next, encourage your workplace and local government to standardize the use of lighting techniques that decrease or eliminate light pollution.Â

You can find more resources and tips on reducing light pollution from the International Dark-Sky Association.

Gasping for air

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:07:27 PST

If the Earth had lungs, an x-ray of them would resemble that of a chronic smoker.

Using data from the World Factbook and the United Nations, BreathingEarth by designer David Bleja elegantly contrasts the globe's real-time dioxide emission levels with each country's birth and death rates.

A deep red color lights up to show countries currently emitting 1,000 tons of C02. All the usual industrial nations are there, such as the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, India, and much of Western Europe.

Small golden suns highlight a recent birth, while brown circles note a death. In the left corner, you'll see a tally of how many humans have come into the world and how many have left it since you've been watching, as well as how much C02 has escaped into the atmosphere.

The data may not be pretty, but the presentation is stylish and smart. And it may make you think before you take another puff from that tailpipe.

Find the original review for this site â and past features on the Web's coolest offerings â on Yahoo! Picks.

Googling pollution

Hank Green — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:35:44 PST

Google Earth rocks. We've seen it monitor illegal coal mining, keep tabs on reforestation, and inform the masses about environmental issues all over the globe.

But now the US EPA is using it to display nation-wide pollution sources and levels. You can zoom right in on your neighborhood and check out carbon monoxide levels and see the major sources for pollution in the United States.

The one major source of pollution not displayed on this map is transportation. As there are so many cars, and they're always moving around, the EPA can't keep tabs. But everything else is right there at your fingertips. Check out your town and see who your major polluters are.

Via Inhabitat

Unchained rhapsody

Jill Robinson — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:53:17 PST

Adorable puppy-dog eyes don't go well with cold, metal chains. Dogs Deserve Better works to educate people against chaining and penning our best friends, and encourages dog owners to train, socialize, exercise, and integrate pets into the family.

Now marking its third year, the organization has representatives across the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Volunteers help with community awareness, provide information on canine welfare, fence yards for dogs, advocate for legal changes, and even foster rescued dogs until they're adopted.

For those who can't volunteer, supporting Dogs Deserve Better through membership and donations can help them create more sweet success stories.

You can also sponsor a formerly chained dog for the holidays. The dog will get food and veterinary care, and your gift recipient will get a personalized letter and a picture of the dog.

Find the original review for this siteâand other features on the Web's coolest offeringsâon Yahoo! Picks.

Join the elephant foster care system

Molly McCall — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:22:52 PST

The Mogor River caught one baby elephant and swept him nearly half a mile downstream. Before that, rangers found a four-month-old who had lost her mother in a panic stampede.

Both youngsters soon joined the family of orphaned elephant calves and their dedicated troupe of keepers at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust.

Since 1978, this remarkable organization has nurtured infant elephants and black rhinos who find themselves motherless in Tsavo National Park, Kenya's largest park and ground zero for its poaching and snaring wars.

Notable as the first group to keep newborn African elephant orphans alive, this conservation powerhouse has saved more than 65 (and counting) endangered waifs.

Online, browse the photo gallery, read the animals' profiles, and try not to fall head over heels with what this place is doing.

Then, consider fostering an orphaned baby elephant for Christmas. You can gift this as a gift or do it as a family project.

The Wildlife trust does the fostering process by email to save costs, and this actually makes it a great last-minute gift since there's no shipping involved. Your gift recipient will learn about the fostered elephant's progress each month, and the animal is ensured the intensive care it needs.

Find the original review for this siteâand other features on the Web's coolest offeringsâon Yahoo! Picks.

Give a wild animal or a native tree

Kastle Waserman — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:52:15 PST

Put a snow leopard under the Christmas tree this year-- figuratively speaking, of course. Through symbolic adoption programs, two wildlife protection organizations let you give some of the world's endangered species as a holiday gift.

The National Wildlife Federation offers symbolic adoptions for $30 to $75. Each gift includes a stuffed animal and extras such as a blanket or backpack.

The World Wildlife Fund has symbolic adoptions for $25 to $250 with packages that range from a certificate to a stuffed animal with a map and a gift box. Donations over $75 also receive an ornament featuring the WWF panda logo.

Both will deliver in time for Christmas if you order by December 17. Your donations go to support the organizations' conservation efforts for imperiled animals. These are sweet gifts for animal lovers who will know their plush toys have made a tiny, furry step to help protect polar bears, gray wolves, humpback whales, and more.

For a real tree-hugger, why not give a tree as a gift? TreePeople offers tree dedications for $25 to $100. A dedication includes a personalized card or certificate indicating a tree will be planted in a person's honor. Orders ship within 4 to 5 business days. The money goes to the Gift of Life program for tree planting in the Los Angeles area.

While dedicated trees are not marked with a name plaque, the public is invited to participate in tree planting events. The next Tree Dedication Ceremony takes place on December 30 in Malibu, California, so if you're local, you can watch how your gift makes the world a little greener!

Help developing countries cut carbon, not trees

Sheryl Canter — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:03:50 PST

This post is by Sheryl Canter, and Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

In last Friday's post on the Bali climate talks, Kyle mentioned giving countries incentives to leave their forests standing. This was also the topic of an excellent piece on NPR this morning, "Climate Experts Mull Payment to Stop Deforestation." Our own Annie Petsonk was interviewed for the story:

The U.S. government has been cool to the idea of reduced deforestation. But Indonesia, with some of the biggest tropical forests on the planet, appears to like it, said climate analyst Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense.

"They may steal a march on the United States by taking a lead and saying, 'We're willing to go forward with programs to cap and cut our greenhouse emissions from deforestation if you in the industrialized world open your carbon markets,'" she said.

Cutting down trees accounts for one-fifth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and it will be next to impossible to avoid catastrophic global warming if we ignore it.

Our paper on Compensated Reduction [PDF] goes into more detail about why we must include deforestation in the new carbon market. The NPR report said that it may get a boost simply because other topics of discussion in Bali are so much more controversial.

Florida and climate change: The costs of not acting

Gerald Karnas — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:49:29 PST

This post is by Gerald Karnas, Florida Climate Project Director at Environmental Defense.

Florida stands to lose big-time unless Congress enacts strong climate legislation, soon. The longer Congress delays, the harder climate change will hit Floridians. Damage to just three sectorsâtourism, electric utilities, and real estateâtogether with hurricane damage would shrink the stateâs gross domestic product by more than 5 percent by the end of this century.

Thatâs the key conclusion of a new report by Tufts University economists. Environmental Defense commissioned the report and is helping to launch it today via a press conference in Tallahassee.

The report, "Florida and Climate Change: The Costs of Inaction" compares two scenarios: a rapid stabilization case and a pessimistic business-as-usual case. These scenarios represent what will happen if the world succeeds in cutting the pollution that causes global warming, versus what will happen if we do very little. The analysis focuses on direct economic impacts. It doesnât even begin to reflect the human and environmental damage that would also resultâdamage that may well outstrip the dollar costs.

This report complements a study released last month by the University of Maryland. The Maryland study was national, and this Tufts study âdrills downâ and provides a lot more detail on potential effects specific to Florida.

Under the business-as-usual scenario, sea-level rise is projected to reach 23 inches by 2050, and 45 inches by 2100. That would flood the land where almost one-tenth of Floridaâs current population, or 1.5 million people, lives. Tourism, one of Floridaâs largest economic sectors, will be the hardest hit as much of the stateâs natural beautyâsandy beaches, the Everglades and the Keysâdisappears under the waves. The vulnerable zone also includes key infrastructure, including two nuclear power plants, three prisons, 68 hospitals, 74 airports, 334 public schools, and nearly 20,000 historic structures.

When people argue against strong action to combat climate change, they often implicitly assume that inaction would be cost-freeâthat we can chose a future that looks much like today, even if we let emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases grow unchecked. But the overwhelming scientific consensus now holds that this rosy assumption is simply wrong. The more greenhouse gases are released, the worse the consequences will be.

This new study shows us a future for Florida that we must avoidâand we still can, with swift, strong action.

The global warming in the pipeline

Lisa Moore — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:00:04 PST

This post is by Lisa Moore, Ph.D., a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.

A common refrain here on Climate411 is that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.

One of the reasons we've cited numerous times is that, even if we could stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at today's levels, some global temperature increase is already locked into the system. This is sometimes called the "warming commitment" or the "warming in the pipeline."

Whatâs behind this phenomenon? The short answer is: water, water everywhere.

Earthâs vast oceans buffer the atmosphere from large temperature changes because it takes a lot of energy to change waterâs temperature. You know this from everyday life: If you put a pot of cold water on a stove and turn on the burner, you can hold your finger in the water for quite a while before the water starts to warm up.

The same principle applies at the global scale. Oceans cover 71 percent of Earthâs surface. It takes an enormous amount of energy to heat that much water, especially since ocean circulation causes warm surface water to sink and cold deep water to return to the surface.

As a result, there is a lag time between when greenhouse gases are emitted to the atmosphere and when temperatures start to rise.

How much warming is in the pipeline? It depends on the level at which greenhouse gases are stabilized.

For example, the latest IPCC report calculates that if we held greenhouse gas concentrations steady at 2000 levels, average global temperature would go up another degree Fahrenheit. Concentrations have gone up since then, so the warming commitment for todayâs greenhouse gas level is slightly higher than one degree.

The implication of this ocean-induced lag time is that we have less time to act than it first appears. The tipping point for losing the Greenland ice sheet may be just 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit above today. If you factor in the warming in the pipeline, about half of that amount is already gone.

In addition to the oceans' role, thereâs another factor that makes it so important to act today: the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases. How much of an effect does this have?

Well, if we cut global emissions deeply enough, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would begin to decline. (A couple decades later, temperatures would decline, too.) Unfortunately, it could take centuries for greenhouse gas concentrations to fall all the way back to todayâs levels.

The bottom line is that, thanks to the ocean-induced time lag, for the next few decades weâre committed to additional warming.

In addition, because greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for so long, every ton of global warming pollution we emit today will affect the climate for decades to come, even if we donât see the effects immediately.

That's why itâs so important that we start decreasing emissions as soon as possible.

The Canary Project

Molly McCall — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:36:10 PDT

You don't have to see "An Inconvenient Truth" to know that there's a new kind of canary in the coal mine,in the form of Austria's desiccated glaciers or Costa Rica's enervated cloud forests.

At numerous places around the globe, the Earth is melting, drowning, drying up, or increasingly battered.

Since 2005, The Canary Project has dedicated itself to capturing large-scale photographic evidence of locations in the grip of such dramatic climate change.

In some cases, the landscape's physical grandeur belies its desperation. In other cases, such as Belize's coral reefs, the underwater world seems so clearly, and unnervingly, diminished, it looks almost dry.

The project doesn't restrict itself to nature's far fringes or deeply submerged realms, either. New Orleans and Venice, perhaps the most canary-like of all the world's great cities, figure prominently here.

Find the original review for this siteâand other reviews of the Web's coolest offeringsâon Yahoo! Picks.

Tune in to the polar bear cam

Kastle Waserman — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:52:32 PDT

Polar bears call the icy tundra of the world's northern regions home. But you don't have to freeze your butt off on a frosty trip to the Arctic for a glimpse of these mighty mammals.

You can get a day-in-the-life view through the polar bear web cam.

The cam is online thanks to Polar Bear International, which dedicates its site to educating the public about polar bears and the challenges they face due to global warming. PBI partnered with National Geographic, the Tundra Buggy Adventure, and WildlifeHD to set up a web cam to watch the bears' annual gathering at Gordon Point near Churchill, Manitoba.

This year's cam will be live through November 28. On any given day you could witness the bears enduring snowstorms, sleeping, huddling their cubs, or enjoying a good ol' play fight to pass the time until the ice freezes and they can begin their hunt for food.

The ice however, is a problem, and scientists fear this could lead to the Bears' ultimate demise. Polar bears have become the poster child of global warming as research points to the melting ice as a contributing factor to a decline in the bear population due to starvation.

To help the bears, PBI offers ways to reduce your carbon emissions, plus donations to PBI go to funding research efforts. The site's extensive gift store also offers great holiday shopping ideas with 100 percent of the proceeds going back into organization.

Why squirrels think we're nuts

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:17:16 PDT

Ever wonder what our wild animal friends think about us? Well, they probably don't appreciate how we treat the planet we all share.

The Green Options blog puts a slightly silly spin on our environmental impact by looking at things from a tree-dwelling rodent's point of view.

Their post Top 15 Reasons Why Squirrels (And Other Animals) Must Think We're Nuts shows how far we've strayed from Mother Nature.

Some nuggets:Â

Squirrels spend their days unpacking their food from shells, but we package up our food in plastic and boxes.

Squirrels play with other squirrels, but humans sit alone in front of our computer and TV screens.

Squirrels only hoard nuts, but we hoard plastic junk.

While this article is poking fun at people, the author does have some good points. A little back-to -nature action might make us feel a bit less nutty, and we could make the planet, ourselves, and the squirrels happier.

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

Molly McCall — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:51:20 PDT

In the past years, untold numbers of scientists, politicians, talking heads, and family members have gone mano-a-mano over the contentious issue of global warming. Is it real? How fast is it happening? And are the polar bears truly on the brink of extinction?

In May 2007, New Scientist stepped into the ring with Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed, a "round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions." With brief answers and links to supplementary information, this manual on Earth's temperatures debunks such statements as "we can't do anything about climate change," "the oceans are actually cooling," "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming," and "it's all a conspiracy."

We even found a few we'd never heard of before, like "Mars and Pluto are warming too."

Finally, the guides addresses the fate of the "poster children of global warming"âno, not Al Gore and Sheryl Crow, but the wild and wooly polar bears. Consider us a little less perplexed.

Find the original review for this siteâand other reviews of the Web's coolest offeringsâon Yahoo! Picks.

Growing coral with electricity

A. Siegel — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:12:26 PDT

Canary in a coal mine is an oft-used metaphor when it comes to global warming and it seems that there are unfortunately a lot of canaries out there. Dying reefs are a prominent canary -- not just because of global warming, but also because of CO₂ pollution causing increasing acidification of the oceans.

We've tried many remediation techniques around the globe, from dumping concrete blocks and construction waste, old tires, and sinking retired Navy ships. Some with success, some less triumphantly.

BiorockÂ® offers a different path, one that looks to have real possibilities. It applies an electric charge, "causing dissolved minerals to crystallize on structures, growing into a white limestone similar to that which naturally makes up coral reefs and tropical white sand beaches." As per BiorockÂ®'s own graphics, renewable (solar or wave buoy) power could provide all the required electricity without the need for creating some form of infrastructure to bring power from shore.

BiorockÂ® is not some form of laboratory concept, but has had numerous demonstration projects around the world that have shown enhanced coral growth rates, higher survival rates for corals than nearby 'natural' systems facing similar environmental stresses. Perhaps this is why the Global Coral Reef Alliance (GCRA) has licensed BiorockÂ®.