By Amber Jenkins

This post was written for My Big Fat Planet, a blog hosted by Amber Jenkins on NASA’s Global Climate Change site.

COLD SNAP: Petermann Glacier, Greenland. Left: June 26, 2010. Right: August 13, 2010. An iceberg more than four times the size of Manhattan broke off the Petermann Glacier (the curved, nearly vertical stripe stretching up from the bottom right of the images) along the northwestern coast of Greenland. Warmer water below the floating ice and at the sea’s surface were probably responsible for the break.
› See more images of our changing Earth from State of Flux

They say a picture says a thousand words. This week we published our 100th image in State of Flux, our gallery showing images of change around our planet. So hopefully by now you’re in awe of our home planet and the ways in which it is constantly changing, and aware of the impact us humans can have.

Each week for the past couple of years, we’ve published new images of different locations on planet Earth, showing change over time periods ranging from centuries to days. The pictures have been taken from space, by NASA’s Eyes on the Earth (its fleet of satellites whizzing above our heads), and from the ground, by real-life people. Some of the changes seen are related to, or exacerbated by, climate change, and some are not. Some document the effects of urbanization and man’s impact on the land, while others the ravage of disasters such as fires and floods.

Seeing our planet from space gives us a global view that we can’t get elsewhere. Through those eyes, we’ve witnessed damage caused by the recent tsunami in Japan, glacier melt in the Himalayas, the greening of China, the growth of Las Vegas and a century of global warming. We’ve looked at the march of deforestation in Bolivia, the rumblings of the (unpronounceable) Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and the damming of the River Nile. Take a look below at some of our favorites. Sign up to our monthly newsletter or subscribe to our Facebook page if you want to keep up to date with our latest images. We’ll be launching a brand spanking new version of the gallery soon!

See more of some of the most stunning images from State of Flux on My Big Fat Planet.

By Amber Jenkins

I stumbled upon this video earlier today. It’s Isaac Asimov, famous science fiction writer and biochemist, talking about global warming — back in January 1989. If you change the coloring of the video, the facial hair style, and switch out Asimov for someone else, the video could pretty much have been made today.

Asimov was giving the keynote address at the first annual meeting of The Humanist Institute. “They wanted me to pick out the most important scientific event of 1988. And I really thought that the most important scientific event of 1988 will only be recognized sometime in the future when you get a little perspective.”

What he was talking about was the greenhouse effect, which, he goes on to explain, is “the story everyone started talking about [in 1988], just because there was a hot summer and a drought.” (Sound familiar, letting individual weather events drive talk of whether the Earth’s long-term climate is heating up or cooling down??)

The greenhouse effect explains how certain heat-trapping (a.k.a. “greenhouse”) gases in our atmosphere keep our planet warm, by trapping infrared rays that Earth would otherwise reflect back out into space. The natural greenhouse effect makes Earth habitable — without our atmosphere acting like an electric blanket, the surface of the earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now.

The problem comes in when humans tinker with this natural state of affairs. Our burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) constantly pumps out carbon dioxide — a heat-trapping gas — into the atmosphere. Our cutting down of forests reduces the number of trees there are to soak up some of this extra carbon dioxide. All in all, our atmosphere and planet heats up, (by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution) with the electric blanket getting gradually thicker around us.

“I have been talking about the greenhouse effect for 20 years at least,” says Asimov in the video. “And there are other people who have talked about it before I did. I didn’t invent it.” As we’ve stressed here recently, global warming, and the idea that humans can change the climate, is not new.

As one blogger notes, Asimov’s words are as relevant today as they were in 1989. “It’s almost like nothing has happened in all this time.” Except that Isaac Asimov has come and gone, and the climate change he spoke of is continuing.

Asimov’s full speech can be seen here.

This post was written for “My Big Fat Planet,” a blog hosted by Amber Jenkins on NASA’s Global Climate Change site.

By Amber Jenkins

You might think from the amount of “climate science debate” that is given airtime in the U.S. media that it’s undiscovered territory. But it’s not. The science is very well established and goes back a long way. Global warming is not a new concept.

The Victorians knew about it. John Tyndall (born 1820) knew about it. So did Svante August Arrhenius. In April 1896, Arrhenius published a paper in the London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science entitled “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.” (Arrhenius referred to carbon dioxide as “carbonic acid” in accordance with the convention of the time.)

Arrhenius’ paper was the first to quantify how carbon dioxide contributed to the greenhouse effect — carbon dioxide warms up the Earth by trapping heat near the surface, a bit like swaddling the planet in an extra blanket. Arrhenius was also the first to speculate about whether changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have contributed to long-term variations in Earth’s climate. He later made the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

Another person who “knew” some time ago was Frank Capra. Graduating from Caltech in 1918, he went on to become a famous filmmaker responsible for “It’s a Wonderful Life” and other movies. But one that stands out, at least for nerds like me or people with an interest in climate change is “Meteora: The Unchained Goddess”, released in 1958:

Made for Bell Labs, this most awesome educational film speaks of “extremely dangerous questions”:

Dr. Frank C. Baxter: “Because with our present knowledge we have no idea what would happen. Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the world’s climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer.”

Richard Carlson: “This is bad?”

Dr. Frank C. Baxter: “Well, it’s been calculated a few degrees rise in the Earth’s temperature would melt the polar ice caps. And if this happens, an inland sea would fill a good portion of the Mississippi valley. Tourists in glass bottom boats would be viewing the drowned towers of Miami through 150 feet of tropical water. For in weather, we’re not only dealing with forces of a far greater variety than even the atomic physicist encounters, but with life itself.”

In 1958, they knew about the effects of heating up the planet. In the 1800s they knew about it. Today, the biggest challenge facing climate scientists lies in predicting how much our climate will change in the future. It’s not a trivial task, given how complicated the climate system is — we can barely predict in detail more than a week’s worth of weather. We’re not viewing Miami through bottomed-glass boats yet, but we’re already beginning to see some of the predictions of global warming — melting sea and land ice, sea level rise, more extreme weather events, changes in rainfall and effects on plants and animals — be borne out.

Thanks to OSS and Discovery News for the tip.

This post was written for “My Big Fat Planet,” a blog hosted by Amber Jenkins on NASA’s Global Climate Change site.

By Ed Begley Jr.

A guest blog written for My Big Fat Planet by Ed Begley Jr.

I visit the NASA website and review the data. CO2: Up. Ocean and land temperature: Up. Sea level: Up. Polar ice: Down.

Oops.

But, as bizarre as this sounds … I find myself pulling for the climate change deniers. Wouldn’t it be swell if they were right? We could all just relax and ride around in huge cars, and life would be good again.

Like it was in 1970 when I showed up at the first Earth Day. Oh, wait. The smog kind of sucked back then. That might not be the best example.

But, what about the main reason the deniers give not to address climate change?: The cost.

As it turns out, a great example can be found back in smoggy Los Angeles in 1970. Many of us wanted to do something about the horrible choking smog of that era. But, we were told we couldn’t afford it.

“We’d love to do something too, Ed, but … the cost!” Fortunately, we didn’t listen to them. Fortunately we also weighed healthcare costs and lost productivity into the equation, and realized the cost of doing nothing was much greater.

And, now, even though we have millions more people in L.A., and four times the cars … we have far less smog. And, there were many jobs and tremendous wealth created by doing the things that addressed the problem.

Making catalytic converters, combined cycle gas turbines, spray paint booths, and a myriad of other clean technologies of that day - they all created new industries, and brought growth with them.

We have that same choice today. Do we want to accept the costs of doing nothing, and hope that the problem goes away?

So, please, do as I do, and direct everyone you know to reputable sources of climate data, such as NASA’s Global Climate Change website. At every talk I give, I make sure that everyone is aware that this information if available. The clock is ticking, and to ignore the science on this one is the worst bet we have ever placed.

Ed Begley Jr. is an Emmy-nominated actor who is active in the environmental community and turns up to Hollywood events on his bicycle. He currently lives near Los Angeles in a self-sufficient home powered by solar energy.

by Chris Boxe
Scientist and Engineer

Oxygen, or O2 on the table of chemical elements, is a vital component for life on Earth. It is the second most abundant gas in Earth’s atmosphere, making up about 21 percent of its volume. On the other hand, its cousin ozone (O3) makes up less than 0.00001 percent. In fact, if all the ozone in Earth’s atmosphere were brought down to the surface, air pressure and temperature conditions would compress ozone into a layer just three millimeters thick, equivalent to two pennies stacked one on top of the other. ! Despite its tiny amount, ozone is also a vital ingredient for life on Earth.

Ozone in fact is vital for life on Earth, but it also has a “bad” side as well - that is, there is both good and bad ozone out there. Good ozone, which accounts for about 91 percent of the ozone in Earth’s atmosphere, is present in the stratosphere, the middle layer in Earth’s atmosphere. This portion of ozone is commonly referred to as the “ozone layer.” The ozone layer absorbs more than 90 percent of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet light, which is potentially damaging to life on Earth. Without the ozone layer, this radiation would not be filtered as it reaches the surface of Earth, resulting in detrimental health effects for life on Earth. Among the health effects humans could experience as a result of overexposure to ultraviolet radiation are skin cancers, premature aging of the skin and other skin problems, cataracts and other forms of eye damage, and suppression of our bodies’ immune systems and our skin’s natural defenses.

The troposphere, the part of the atmosphere closest to Earth, contains both good and bad ozone. In the lower troposphere, ozone may serve as an air pollutant since it is a major component of photochemical smog. In the middle troposphere, ozone acts as an atmospheric cleanser, and in the upper troposphere, ozone is a greenhouse gas, which could be bad if concentrations get too high.

The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer flies aboard NASA’s Aura spacecraft. Image credit: NASA JPL

The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer, a science instrument onboard NASA’s Aura satellite, is improving our understanding of the good and bad ozone in the troposphere. The spectrometer, which was launched in 2004, provides the first global view of tropospheric ozone and vertical concentrations of ozone, as well as temperature and other important tropospheric features, including carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), water vapor and ammonia (NH3). The instrument has studied the origin and distribution of tropospheric ozone. It has also shed light on how the increasing ozone abundance in the troposphere is affecting air quality on a global scale, as well as ozone’s role in chemical reactions that “clean” the atmosphere, and climate change.

These data are used by scientists to determine the degree to which natural sources, like lightning and plant growth, and human-produced sources, like automobiles, industrial pollution, and biomass burning, contribute to ozone production and chemistry. For example, during summertime in the upper troposphere, where ozone acts as a greenhouse gas, lightning generates much greater amounts of ozone than do human activities, thereby having a big impact on regional pollution. Over the last few years, the spectrometer has obtained global data on ozone and chemicals that participate in ozone formation. The fact that the instrument is able to quantify vertical profiles of ozone improves our understanding of how various reactions taking place at specified heights contribute to ozone chemistry. Similar to ozone, chemicals that participate in its production also exist in tiny amounts. Still, this enables scientists to better understand long-term variations in the quantity, distribution and mixing of many tropospheric gases that have a large impact on climate and air quality.

My role with the instrument is to validate the quality of the most recent ozone measurements, which are taken in a special observation mode, called “stare.” This mode is used to monitor biomass burning events and volcanic activity. I compare measurements taken by an ozonesdone (a lightweight, balloon-borne instrument that measures ozone, air pressure, temperature and humidity as it ascends through the atmosphere) with measurements from the tropospheric spectrometer. We do this so we can demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the instrument’s readings. I am also participating in projects that use the instrument data to better understand the chemistry and transport of pollutants coming from wildfires, such as those that occurred in Australia in December 2006. For the future, I am interested in using the tropospheric spectrometer satellite data for ozone and methane to better quantify the degree to which they contribute to global warming and climate change.