in the United States
-------
How to Obtain Copies
You can electronically download this document from EPA's Climate
Indicators Site atwww.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html. To
request free copies of this report, call the National Service Center
for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 1-800-490-9198.
For Further Information
For further information, please e-mail climateindicators@epa.gov or
call the EPA Climate Change Division hotline at 202-343-9990.
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments ii
Introduction 1
Summary of Key Findings 4
Greenhouse Gases 8
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2
Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases 4
Climate Forcing 8
Weather and Climate 20
U.S. and Global Temperature 22
HeatWaves 24
Drought 26
U.S. and Global Precipitation 28
Heavy Precipitation 30
Tropical Cyclone Intensity 32
Oceans 34
Ocean Heat 36
Sea Surface Temperature 38
Sea Level 40
Ocean Acidity 42
Snow and Ice 44
Arctic Sea Ice 46
Glaciers 48
Lake Ice 50
Snow Cover 52
Snowpack 54
Society and Ecosystems 56
Heat-Related Deaths 58
Length of Growing Season 60
Plant Hardiness Zones 62
Leaf and Bloom Dates 64
Bird Wintering Ranges 66
Conclusion 68
Climate Change Resources 69
Endnotes... .. 71
-------
Acknowledgments
This report reflects the contributions of multiple individuals. Jason Samenow of EPA served as the report's day-to-day project
manager, with key assistance from Kevin Rosseel. Eastern Research Group, Inc., under contract to EPA, managed the report's
technical development and layout. ICF International also provided support in the screening and development of indicators.
Scientists across five federal agencies were instrumental in providing indicator data and/or reviewing the indicator descriptions.
In particular, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center provided key assistance
for this report's chapter on weather and climate. EPA also received essential support for this report from scientists at a num-
ber of universities, nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions.
Data Providers and Indicator Reviewers—U.S. Federal Agencies
George Luber
Office of Air and Radiation
Brian B.Cook, Ben DeAngelo,Christine Davis, Mausami Desai, Michael Hadrick,
Leif Hockstadjeremy Martinich,William Perkins, Marcus Sarofim, MelissaWeitz
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
EPA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Snow and Ice Data Center
U.S. Geological Survey
Office ofWater
Robert Cantilli, Rachael Novak
Climate Prediction Center
Gerry Bell
Earth Systems Research Laboratory
David Hofmann
National Climatic Data Center
DekeArndt, David Easterling, Karin Gleason, Richard Heim,
Jay Lawrimore, Dick Reynolds, Ahira Sanchez-Lugo, David Wuertz
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
Tom Smith
National Oceanographic Data Center
Sydney Levitus
National Ocean Service
Chris Zervas
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
Chris Sabine
Walt Meier
Ed Josberger, Shad O'Neel
Data Providers and Indicator Reviewers—Universities, Nongovernmental Organizations,
and International Institutions
Arbor Day Foundation
Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation
Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences
Desert Research Institute
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science
and Technology
Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology
National Audubon Society
Rutgers University
University of Colorado-Boulder
University of Southampton
University of Washington
University ofWisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Woody Nelson
John Church, Catia Domingues, Neil White
Nicholas Bates
Ken Kunkel, Kelly Redmond
Masayoshi Ishii
Kerry Emanuel
Gregory Butcher, Daniel Niven, Robert Perciasepe
David Robinson
Mark Meier, Steve Nerem
Andrew Yool
Philip Mote
Barbara Benson,John Magnuson
Mark Schwartz
-------
Introduction
Over the last several decades, evidence of human
influences on climate change has become increas-
ingly clear and compelling. There is indisputable
evidence that human activities such as electricity pro-
duction and transportation are adding to the concen-
trations of greenhouse gases that are already naturally
present in the atmosphere. These heat-trapping gases
are now at record-high levels in the atmosphere com-
pared with the recent and distant past.
Warming of the climate system is well documented,
evident from increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and
rising global average sea level. The buildup of green-
house gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause
of most of the recent observed increase in average
temperatures, and contributes to other climate changes.1
Collecting and interpreting environmental indicators has played a critical role in our in-
creased understanding of climate change and its causes. An indicator represents the state of
certain environmental conditions over a given area and a specified period of time. Scientists,
analysts, decision-makers, and others use environmental indicators, including those related to
climate, to help track trends over time in the state of the environment, key factors that influ-
ence the environment, and effects on ecosystems and society.
What Is Climate Change?
Climate change refers to any significant change in
measures of climate (such as temperature, pre-
cipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period
(decades or longer). Climate change might result
from natural factors and processes or from human
The term "climate change" is often used inter-
changeably with the term global warming. Global
warming refers to an average increase in the
temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's
surface, which can contribute to changes in global
climate patterns. However, rising temperatures are
just one aspect of climate change.
About This Report
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
published this report, Climate Change Indicators in the
United States, to help readers interpret a set of important
indicators to better understand climate change. The
report presents 24 indicators, each describing trends in
some way related to the causes and effects of climate
change. The indicators focus primarily on the United
States, but in some cases global trends are presented in
order to provide context or a basis for comparison. The
indicators span a range of time periods, depending on
The phrase "climate change"
is growing in preferred use to
"global warming" because it
helps convey that there are
changes in addition to rising
temperatures.
—The National Academies2
-------
Ground-Level Ozone,
Particles, and Aerosols
This report does not document trends in
various short-lived greenhouse gases (such as
ground-level ozone) or particles and aerosols
(such as black carbon and sulfate aerosols).
Ground-level ozone is a greenhouse gas: it
traps some of the Earth's outgoing energy,
thus having a warming effect on the atmo-
sphere and contributing to increases in global
temperature. Depending on their composition,
particles and aerosols can have net heating or
cooling effects at the Earth's surface. For ex-
ample, airborne sulfate aerosols have a cooling
effect on the atmosphere, while airborne black
carbon aerosols have a warming effect.
Readers can learn more about ozone, particles,
and other air pollutants from EPA's Our Nation's
Air—Status and Trends report (www.epa.gov/
airtrends/20IO/index.html).The report presents
information on the status and trends of air
pollutant emissions and atmospheric concen-
trations in the United States, but does not
interpret those data in the context of climate
change.
For more information on the linkages between
climate change and air quality, see EPA's April
2009 Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change
on Regional U.S. Air Quality (http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=203459).
data availability. For each indicator, this report presents
one or more graphics showing trends over time; a list
of key points; and text that describes how the indicator
relates to climate change, how the indicator was devel-
oped, and any factors that might contribute to uncer-
tainty in the trend or the supporting data (referred to in
this report as "indicator limitations").
The report also includes a summary of major findings
associated with each indicator (see Summary of Key
Findings on p. 4). Additional resources that can provide
readers with more information appear at the end of the
report (see Climate Change Resources on p. 69).
Although some of the indicators show that fundamental
environmental changes are now occurring likely as a
result of climate change, others are not as clear. As new
or more complete data become available, EPA plans to
update the indicators presented in this report and pro-
vide additional indicators that can broaden our under-
standing of climate change.
EPA selected the 24 indicators presented in this report
from a broader set of 110 indicators, many of which
were identified at an expert workshop (November 30 to
December 1, 2004) on climate change indicators con-
vened by the National Academy of Sciences and funded
by EPA. The indicators in this report were chosen using
a set of screening criteria that considered usefulness,
objectivity, data quality, transparency, ability to show a
meaningful trend, and relevance to climate change.
All of the indicators selected for this report are
based on data that have been collected and com-
piled by following rigorous protocols that are
widely accepted by the scientific community. Vari-
ous government agencies, academic institutions,
and other organizations collected the data.
The indicators are divided into five chapters:
Most of the observed increase in
global average temperatures since
the mid-20th century is very likely
due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations.
—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change3
Greenhouse Gases: The indicators in this chapter characterize the amount of green-
house gases emitted into the atmosphere through human activities, the concentra-
tions of these gases in the atmosphere, and how emissions and concentrations have
changed over time.
Weather and Climate: This chapter focuses on indicators related to weather and
climate patterns, including temperature, precipitation, storms, droughts, and heat
waves. These indicators can reveal long-term changes in the Earth's climate system.
-------
Oceans: The world's oceans have a two-way relationship with climate. The
oceans influence climate on regional and global scales, while changes in cli-
mate can fundamentally alter certain properties of the ocean. This chapter
examines trends in ocean characteristics that relate to climate change, such
as acidity, temperature, heat storage, and sea level.
SnOW and Ice: Climate change can dramatically alter the Earth's snow- and
ice-covered areas. These changes, in turn, can affect air temperatures, sea
levels, ocean currents, and storm patterns. This chapter focuses on trends in
glaciers; the extent and depth of snow cover; and the freezing and thawing
of oceans and lakes.
Society and Ecosystems: Changes in the Earth's climate can affect public
health, agriculture, energy production and use, land use and development,
and recreation. Climate change can also disrupt the functioning of eco-
systems and increase the risk of harm or even extinction for some species.
This chapter looks at just a few of the impacts that may be linked to climate
change, including heat-related illnesses and changes in plant growth. EPA
looks forward to expanding this chapter in future reports as the science
evolves and the capacity to report on these types of indicators is broadened.
Looking Ahead
Environmental indicators are a key tool for evaluating existing
and future programs and supporting new decisions with sound
science. In the years to come, the indicators in this report will
provide data to help the Agency decide how best to use its policy-
making and program management resources to respond to climate
change. Ultimately, these indicators will help EPA and its con-
stituents evaluate the success of their climate change efforts.
Indicator Updates
Suggestions for new indicators are
welcome.To provide input or to get
more information on climate change
indicators, visit: www.epa.gov/
climatechanse/indicators.html.
-------
Summary of Key Findings
T
he indicators in this report present clear evidence that the composition of the atmosphere is being
altered as a result of human activities and that the climate is changing. They also illustrate a num-
ber of effects on society and ecosystems related to these changes.
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions caused by
human activities increased by 14 percent from 1990 to 2008. Carbon dioxide accounts
for most of the nation's emissions and most of this increase. Electricity generation is the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, followed by transporta-
tion. Emissions per person have remained about the same since 1990.
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Worldwide, emissions of greenhouse gases from human
activities increased by 26 percent from 1990 to 2005. Emissions of carbon dioxide, which
account for nearly three-fourths of the total, increased by 31 percent over this period. Like
in the United States, the majority of the world's emissions are associated with energy use.
Atmospheric Concentrations Of Greenhouse Gases. Concentrations of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen substantially since the beginning of
the industrial era. Almost all of this increase is attributable to human activities. Histori-
cal measurements show that the current levels of many greenhouse gases are higher than
any seen in thousands of years, even after accounting for natural fluctuations.
Climate Forcing. Climate or "radiative" forcing is a way to measure how substances such
as greenhouse gases affect the amount of energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere. An
increase in radiative forcing leads to warming while a decrease in forcing produces cool-
ing. From 1990 to 2008, the radiative forcing of all the greenhouse gases in the Earth's
atmosphere increased by about 26 percent. The rise in carbon dioxide concentrations
accounts for approximately 80 percent of this increase.
-------
U.S. and Global Temperature. Average temperatures have risen across the lower 48 states
since 1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Seven of the top
10 warmest years on record for the lower 48 states have occurred since 1990, and the last
10 five-year periods have been the warmest five-year periods on record. Average global
temperatures show a similar trend, and 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record
worldwide. Within the United States, parts of the North, the West, and Alaska have
seen temperatures increase the most.
Heat Waves. The frequency of heat waves in the United States decreased in the 1960s
and 1970s, but has risen steadily since then. The percentage of the United States experi-
encing heat waves has also increased. The most severe heat waves in U.S. history remain
those that occurred during the "Dust Bowl" in the 1930s, although average temperatures
have increased since then.
Drought. Over the period from 2001 through 2009, roughly 30 to 60 percent of the U.S.
land area experienced drought conditions at any given time. However, the data for this
indicator have not been collected for long enough to determine whether droughts are
increasing or decreasing over time.
U.S. and Global Precipitation. Average precipitation has increased in the United States
and worldwide. Since 1901, precipitation has increased at an average rate of more than
6 percent per century in the lower 48 states and nearly 2 percent per century worldwide.
However, shifting weather patterns have caused certain areas, such as Hawaii and parts
of the Southwest, to experience less precipitation than they used to.
Heavy Precipitation. In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United
States has come in the form of intense single-day events. Eight of the top 10 years for
extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990. The occurrence of ab-
normally high annual precipitation totals has also increased.
Tropical Cyclone Intensity The intensity of tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico did not exhibit a strong long-term trend for much of the
20th century, but has risen noticeably over the past 20 years. Six of the 10 most active
hurricane seasons have occurred since the mid-1990s. This increase is closely related to
variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic.
-------
Ocean Heat. Several studies have shown that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has
increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea
surface temperature, but it also affects sea level and currents.
Sea Surface Temperature. The surface temperature of the world's oceans increased over
the 20th century. Even with some year-to-year variation, the overall increase is statisti-
cally significant, and sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three
decades than at any other time since large-scale measurement began in the late 1800s.
Sea Level. When averaged over all the world's oceans, sea level has increased at a rate of
roughly six-tenths of an inch per decade since 1870. The rate of increase has accelerated in
recent years to more than an inch per decade. Changes in sea level relative to the height
of the land vary widely because the land itself moves. Along the U.S. coastline, sea level
has risen the most relative to the land along the Mid-Atlantic coast and parts of the Gulf
Coast. Sea level has decreased relative to the land in parts of Alaska and the Northwest.
Ocean Acidity The ocean has become more acidic over the past 20 years, and studies
suggest that the ocean is substantially more acidic now than it was a few centuries ago.
Rising acidity is associated with increased levels of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water.
Changes in acidity can affect sensitive organisms such as corals.
Arctic Sea Ice. Part of the Arctic Ocean stays frozen year-round. The area covered by ice
is typically smallest in September, after the summer melting season. September 2007 had
the least ice of any year on record, followed by 2008 and 2009. The extent of Arctic sea
ice in 2009 was 24 percent below the 1979 to 2000 historical average.
Glaciers. Glaciers in the United States and around the world have generally shrunk since
the 1960s, and the rate at which glaciers are melting appears to have accelerated over the
last decade. Overall, glaciers worldwide have lost more than 2,000 cubic miles of water
since 1960, which has contributed to the observed rise in sea level.
Lake Ice. Lakes in the northern United States generally appear to be freezing later and
thawing earlier than they did in the 1800s and early 1900s. The length of time that lakes
stay frozen has decreased at an average rate of one to two days per decade.
-------
SnOW Cover. The portion of North America covered by snow has generally decreased
since 1972, although there has been much year-to-year variability. Snow covered an
average of 3.18 million square miles of North America during the years 2000 to 2008,
compared with 3.43 million square miles during the 1970s.
. Between 1950 and 2000, the depth of snow on the ground in early spring
decreased at most measurement sites in the western United States and Canada. Spring
snowpack declined by more than 75 percent in some areas, but increased in a few others.
mdEcQS]
Heat-Related Deaths. Over the past three decades, more than 6,000 deaths across the
United States were caused by heat-related illness such as heat stroke. However, consider-
able year-to-year variability makes it difficult to determine long-term trends.
Length Of Growing Season. The average length of the growing season in the lower 48
states has increased by about two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century. A
particularly large and steady increase has occurred over the last 30 years. The observed
changes reflect earlier spring warming as well as later arrival of fall frosts. The length of
the growing season has increased more rapidly in the West than in the East.
Plant Hardiness Zones. Winter low temperatures are a major factor in determining which
plants can survive in a particular area. Plant hardiness zones have shifted noticeably
northward since 1990, reflecting higher winter temperatures in most parts of the country.
Large portions of several states have warmed by at least one hardiness zone.
Leaf and BlOOm Dates. Leaf growth and flower blooms are examples of natural events
whose timing can be influenced by climate change. Observations of lilacs and honeysuck-
les in the lower 48 states suggest that leaf growth is now occurring a few days earlier than
it did in the early 1900s. Lilacs and honeysuckles are also blooming slightly earlier than in
the past, but it is difficult to determine whether this change is statistically meaningful.
Bird Wintering Ranges. Some birds shift their range or alter their migration habits to
adapt to changes in temperature or other environmental conditions. Long-term stud-
ies have found that bird species in North America have shifted their wintering grounds
northward by an average of 35 miles since 1966, with a few species shifting by several
hundred miles. On average, bird species have also moved their wintering grounds farther
from the coast, consistent with rising inland temperatures.
-------
;
U.S.
Greenhouse
Gas Emissio
Global
Greenhouse
as Emissions
Atmospheric
Concentrations
* of Greenhouse
Gases
-------
Greenhouse Gases
Associated With
Human Activities
The principal greenhouse gases that
enter the atmosphere because of human
Eiergy from the sun drives the Earth's weather and
:limate. The Earth absorbs some of the energy it
eceives from the sun and radiates the rest back
toward space. However, certain gases in the atmo-
sphere, called greenhouse gases, absorb some of the
energy radiated from the Earth and trap it in the
atmosphere. These gases essentially act as a blanket,
making the Earth's surface warmer than it would be
otherwise.
The "greenhouse effect" occurs naturally, making life
as we know it possible. During the past century, how-
ever, human activities have substantially increased the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, chang-
ing the composition of the atmosphere and influenc-
ing climate. Some greenhouse gases are almost entirely
man-made. Other greenhouse gases come from a
combination of natural sources and human activities.
For example, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that
occurs naturally because of volcanoes, forest fires, and
biological processes (such as breathing), but is also
produced by burning fossil fuels in power plants and
automobiles. Other major sources of greenhouse gases
include industrial and agricultural processes, waste
management, and land use changes.
The major greenhouse gases emitted into the atmo-
sphere through human activities are carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases (see
Greenhouse Gases Associated With Human Activi-
ties at right). Many of these gases can remain in the
atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years after being
released. Thus, to get a more complete picture of the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, both
emissions (how much of a given greenhouse gas is
produced and emitted into the air) and concentra-
tions (the amount of a greenhouse gas present in a certain volume of air) are measured.
Long-lived greenhouse gases become globally mixed in the atmosphere, reflecting both past
and recent contributions from emission sources worldwide.
activities are:
• Carbon dioxide is emitted primarily
through the burning of fossil fuels
(oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste,
and trees and wood products. Changes
in land use, such as growing new
forests or disturbing soils, can lead
to the addition or removal of carbon
dioxide to/from the atmosphere.
• Methane is emitted during the
production and transport of coal,
natural gas, and oil. Methane emis-
sions also result from livestock and
agricultural practices and from the
decay of organic waste in municipal
solid waste landfills.
• Nitrous oxide is emitted during agri-
cultural and industrial activities, as
well as during combustion of fossil
fuels and solid waste.
• Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluo-
rocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride, are emitted from
a variety of industrial processes and
commercial and household uses. Flu-
orinated gases are sometimes used
as substitutes for ozone-depletinj
substances such as chlorofluorocar-
bons (CFCs).
Some short-lived greenhouse gases, such
as tropospheric ozone, and aerosols (or
particles in the atmosphere), such as
black carbon and sulfates, are relevant to
climate change.While this report focuses
only on major, long-lived greenhouse
gases, these shorter-lived substances
might be included in future editions of
this report. For the latest trends and
information on these gases, visit EPA's
Air Trends Report at: www.epa.gov/
airtrends/2010/index.html.
Jimate
Forcing
-------
Background
A number of factors influence the quanti-
ties of greenhouse gases released into
the atmosphere, including economic
activity, population, income level, energy
prices, land use, technology, and weather
conditions. There are several ways to
track these emissions. In addition to
tracking overall emissions and emissions
from specific industrial sectors in abso-
lute terms, many countries also track
emissions per capita.
Methods to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions include fuel switching (such as
switching from fossil fuels to wind pow-
er); conservation and energy efficiency;
and methane recovery from emission
sources such as landfills and coal mines.
About the Indicator
This indicator focuses on emissions of
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
and several fluorinated compounds—all
important greenhouse gases that are
influenced by human activities. These
particular gases are covered under the
United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, an international
agreement that requires participating
countries to develop and periodically
submit an inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions. Data and analysis for this
indicator come from EPA's Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
I990-2008.1
This indicator reports emissions of
greenhouse gases according to their
global warming potential, a measure
of how much a given amount of the
greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute
to global warming over a selected period
of time. For the purposes of comparison,
global warming potential values are given
in relation to carbon dioxide and are
expressed in terms of carbon dioxide
equivalents. For additional perspective,
this indicator also shows greenhouse gas
emissions in relation to economic activity
and population.
S.Greenirouse
This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States and its territories.
Figure 1. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 1990-2008
This figure shows emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and several fluorinated com-
pounds in the United States from 1990 to 2008. For consistency, emissions are expressed in million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
8,000
7,000
MFCs, PFCs, and SF,« Nitrous oxide
Methane
Carbon dioxide
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998 2000
Year
2002
2004
2006
2008
* MFCs are hydrofluorocarbons, PFCs are perfluorocarbons, and SF6 is sulfur hexafluoride.
Data source: U.S. EPA, 20 1 02
Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks by Economic Sectoc 1990-2008
This figure shows greenhouse gas sinks and emissions by source in the United States from 1990 to 2008. For
consistency, emissions are expressed in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Totals do not match
Figure I exactly because the economic sectors shown here do not include emissions from U.S. territories.
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
•£ -2,000
Industry
Transportation
1990
Land use, land use change, and forestry (sinks)
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
2004
2006
2008
Data source: U.S. EPA, 20103
J0|
-------
Gas Emissions
Figure 3. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita and per Dollar of
GDR1990-2008
This figure shows trends in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2008 per capita, based on the
total U.S. population (heavy orange line). It also shows trends in emissions compared with the real GDP,
which is the value of all goods and services produced in the country during a given year, adjusted for
inflation (heavy blue line). All data are indexed to 1990 as the base year, which is assigned a value of
100; thus a value of 140 in 2000 would represent a 40 percent increase since 1990.
180
M 120
100
80
60
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Data source: U.S. EPA, 201O4
Key Points
In 2008, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,957 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents, a 14 percent increase from 1990 (see Figure I).
During the period from 1990 to 2008 (see Figure I):
o Emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human
activities, increased by 16 percent.
o Emissions of fluorinated compounds, released as a result of commercial,
industrial, and household uses, rose by 66 percent. Although fluorinated gases
accounted for only 2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2008, they are
important because they have extremely high global warming potential values and
long atmospheric lifetimes.
o Methane emissions decreased by 7 percent, largely because of reduced emissions
from landfills and coal mines.5
o Nitrous oxide emissions, largely derived from agricultural soil management,
nitrogen application, and vehicle emissions, declined by I percent.
Electricity generation has accounted for about 32 percent of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions since 1990.Transportation is the second largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions, accounting for 27 percent of emissions since 1990 (see Figure 2).
In 2008, 14 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were offset by uptake of
carbon and "sequestration" in forests, trees, agricultural soils, and landfilled yard
trimmings and food scraps (these are referred to as sinks, as shown in Figure 2
beneath the axis).
Emissions per capita have remained nearly level since 1990 (see Figure 3), as emis-
sions have increased at about the same rate as the population.
From 1990 to 2008, greenhouse gas emissions per unit of U.S. GDP declined by 31
percent (see Figure 3).
Indicator Limitations
While this indicator addresses many of the
most important greenhouse gases, it does
not include other gases that are not covered
under the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change but could still
affect the Earth's energy balance and climate
(see the Climate Forcing indicator on p. 18
for more details). For example, this indicator
excludes ozone-depleting substances such
as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydro-
chlorofluorocarbons, which have high global
warming potentials, as these gases are being
phased out under an international agreement
called the Montreal Protocol. There also are
a variety of natural greenhouse gas emission
sources; however, this indicator includes only
man-made and human-influenced greenhouse
gas emissions.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator came from EPA's
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2008. This report is available
online at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/usinventoryreport.html. The
calculations in Figure 3 are based on gross
domestic product (GDP) and population data
provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis and the U.S. Census, respectively.
-------
ndicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide.
Background
Every country around the world emits
greenhouse gases, meaning the root
causes of climate change are truly
global. Some countries produce more
greenhouse gases than others, however,
depending on factors such as economic
activity, population, income level, land use,
and weather conditions. Tracking green-
house gas emissions worldwide provides
a global context for understanding the
United States' role in addressing climate
change.
About the Indicator
Like the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
indicator (p. 10), this indicator focuses
on emissions of gases covered under the
United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change: carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, and several
fluorinated compounds. These are all
important greenhouse gases that are
influenced by human activities, and the
Convention requires participating coun-
tries to develop and periodically submit
an inventory of emissions.
Data and analysis for this indicator come
from the World Resources Institute's
Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT),
which compiles data from greenhouse gas
inventories developed by EPA and other
agencies worldwide. Global estimates for
carbon dioxide are published annually,
but estimates for other gases such as
methane and nitrous oxide are available
only every fifth year.
This indicator tracks emissions of green-
house gases according to their global
warming potential, a measure of how
much a given amount of the greenhouse
gas is estimated to contribute to global
warming over a selected period of time.
For the purposes of comparison, global
warming potential values are given in rela-
tion to carbon dioxide and are expressed
in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Figure 1. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 1990-2005
This figure shows worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and several fluo-
rinated compounds from 1990 to 2005. For consistency, emissions are expressed in million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. These totals do not include emissions due to land use change or
forestry because estimates are not available for the most recent years.
40,000
£ • MFCs, PFCs, and SF6«
Nitrous oxide
Methane
- Carbon dioxide
35,000
30,000
1
•s
25,000
20,000
15,000
= 10,000
5,000
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
* MFCs are hydrofluorocarbons, PFCs are perfluorocarbons, and SF6 is sulfur hexafluoride.
Data source:World Resources Institute, 20096
Figure 2. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, 1990-2005
This figure shows worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2005* For consistency,
emissions are expressed in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. These totals do not include
emissions due to land use change or forestry because estimates are not available for the most recent years.
40,000
Waste
H Industrial processes
Agriculture
M International transport
• Energy
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
12]
* Note that the sectors shown here are different from the economic sectors used in U.S. emissions accounting
(see the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator). Emissions from international transport (aviation and marine)
are separate from the energy sector because they are not part of individual countries' emission inventories.
Data source:World Resources Institute, 20097
-------
Gas Emissions
Key Points
In 2005, the world is estimated to have emitted over 38,000 million metric
tons of greenhouse gases, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. This
represents a 26 percent increase from 1990 (see Figures I and 2).
During the period from 1990 to 2005, global emissions of all major green-
house gases increased (see Figure I). Methane emissions rose the least—10
percent—while emissions of fluorinated compounds more than doubled.
Emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 3 I percent, which is particularly
important because carbon dioxide accounts for nearly three-fourths of total
global emissions.
Energy use is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide
(about 73 percent of the total), followed by agriculture (16 to 17 percent)
(see Figure 2).
In the United States, changes in land use and forestry represent a net "sink"
for greenhouse gases, meaning they absorb more greenhouse gases (for ex-
ample, through the net growth of forests) than they emit. On a global scale,
however, these activities represent an additional source of greenhouse gases
due to factors such as human-caused destruction of forests.8
Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing faster in some parts of the world
than in others (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 1990-2005
This figure shows carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 2005 for different regions of the world.
These data do not include emissions attributable to land use, land use change, or forestry.
.2
30,000
25,000
20,000
Other North
South Americ
America
i
Africa and Middle Eas
i
^^
A
Australia and Oceania
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
Data source: World Resources Institute, 2009'
Indicator Limitations
Like the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions indi-
cator (p. 10), this indicator does not include
emissions of a number of gases that might
affect climate but are not covered under the
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. For example, this indicator
excludes ozone-depleting substances such
as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydro-
chlorofluorocarbons, which have high global
warming potentials, as these gases are being
phased out under an international agreement
called the Montreal Protocol. There also are
a variety of natural greenhouse gas emission
sources; however, this indicator includes only
man-made and human-influenced greenhouse
gas emissions.
Global emission inventories for gases other
than carbon dioxide are limited. Data are
only available at five-year intervals, and the
most recent year—2005—represents a set of
projections. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change database has
more comprehensive data; however, these
data are available only for developed coun-
tries that are parties to the Convention—a
group that accounts for only about half of
global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, to
provide a more representative measure of
global greenhouse gas emissions, this indica-
tor uses the broader CAIT database.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator came from the World
Resources Institute's CAIT database, which is
accessible online at: http://cait.wri.org. CAIT
compiles data that were originally collected
by organizations such as the United Nations,
International Energy Agency, EPA, and U.S.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
111
-------
Atmospheri
This indicator describes how the levels of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have
changed over time.
Background
Since the Industrial Revolution, humans
have added a significant amount of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by
burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests,
and other activities (see the U.S. and
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Indica-
tors on pp. 10-13).When greenhouse
gases are emitted into the atmosphere,
most remain in the atmosphere for long
time periods, ranging from a decade
to many millennia. If emissions exceed
their uptake by "sinks," such as oceans
and vegetation, these gases accumulate
and their concentrations rise. Long-lived
greenhouse gases become well mixed
in the atmosphere because of transport
by winds, and concentrations are similar
throughout the world. Concentrations
of short-lived greenhouse gases such as
tropospheric ozone often vary regionally
and are not described in this indicator.
Concentrations of greenhouse gases
are measured in parts per million (ppm),
parts per billion (ppb), or parts per tril-
lion (ppt) by volume. In other words, if a
parcel of air were divided into a million
parts (or a billion or trillion), this indica-
tor measures how many of those parts
would be made up of greenhouse gases.
About the Indicator
This indicator describes concentrations
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It focuses on the major greenhouse gases
that result from human activities: carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and cer-
tain manufactured gases—known as halo-
carbons—that contain fluorine, chlorine,
bromine, or iodine. This indicator shows
concentrations of greenhouse gases over
thousands of years. Measurements in
recent years have come from monitoring
stations around the world, while older
measurements come from air bubbles
trapped in layers of ice from Antarctica
and Greenland. By determining the age of
the ice layers and the concentrations of
gases trapped inside, scientists can learn
what the atmosphere was like thousands
of years ago.
Figure 1. Global Atmospheric
Concentrations of Carbon
Dioxide Over lime
This figure shows concentrations of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere from hundreds of
thousands of years ago through 2009. The
data come from a variety of historical stud-
ies and monitoring sites around the world.
647,426 BC to 2009 AD
Figure 2. Global Atmospheric
Concentrations of Methane
Over lime
This figure shows concentrations of meth-
ane in the atmosphere from hundreds of
thousands of years ago through 2008. The
data come from a variety of historical stud-
ies and monitoring sites around the world.
-700,000 -600,000 -500,000 -400,000 -300,000 -200,000 -100,000 0
Year [negative values = EC)
Measurement locations:
(Please see Endnotes for complete list of data sources)1
- EPICA Dome C, Antarctica:
647,426 BC to 41 1,548 BC
— Vostok Station, Antarctica: 4 15,157 BC to 339 BC
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: 9002 BC to 15 15 AD
646,729 BC to 2008 AD
2,000
1,500
1,000
-700,000 -600,000 -500,000 400,000 -300,000 -200,000 -100,000 0
Year [negative values = BC1
Measurement locations:
(Please see Endnotes for complete list of data sources)1
- EPICA Dome C, Antarctica:
646,729 BC to 1888 AD
™ Vostok Station, Antarctica: 4 15,172 BC to 346 BC
- Greenland GISP2 ice core: 87,798 BC to 8187 BC
14]
-------
rttratibns of Greenhouse Gases
10,000 BC to 2009 AD
1950 AD to 2009 AD
-10,000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000
Year [negative values = BC)
150
o
1 950 1 960 1970 1 980 1 990 2000 20
Year
Law Dome, Antarctica, 75-year smoothed:
lOIOADto 1975 AD
— Siple Station, Antarctica: 1744 AD to 1953 AD
- Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 1959 AD to 2009 AD
Barrow,Alaska: 1974 AD to 2008 AD
Cape Matatula, American Samoa: 1976 AD to 2008 AD
' South Pole, Antarctica: 1976 AD to 2008 AD
i Cape Grim, Australia: 1992 AD to 2006 AD
Lampedusa Island, Italy: 1993 AD to 2000 AD
' Shetland Islands, Scotland: 1993 AD to 2002 AD
10,000 BC to 2008 AD
1950 AD to 2008 AD
2,000
1,500
1,000
2,000
-=_ 1,500
1,000
500
-10,000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0
Year [negative values = BC1
2000
1950 1960
1970
1980
Year
1990 2000
2010
Byrd Station, Antarctica: 85,929 BC to 6748 BC
Greenland GRIP ice core: 46,933 BC to 8129 BC
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: 8945 BC to 1760 AD
Law Dome, Antarctica: 1008 AD to 1980 AD
Various Greenland locations: 1075 AD to 1885 AD
' Greenland SiteJ: 1598 AD to 1951 AD
Cape Grim, Australia: 1984 AD to 2008 AD
' Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 1987 AD to 2008 AD
Shetland Islands, Scotland: 1993 AD to 2001 AD
Key Points
Global atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and certain manufactured
greenhouse gases have all risen
substantially in recent years (see
Figures 1,2, 3, and 4).
Before the industrial era began
around 1780, carbon dioxide con-
centrations measured approximately
270-290 ppm. Concentrations have
risen steadily since then, reaching
387 ppm in 2009—a 38 percent
increase. Almost all of this increase
is due to human activities.12
Since 1905, the concentration of
methane in the atmosphere has
roughly doubled. It is very likely that
this increase is predominantly due
to agriculture and fossil fuel use.13
Historical measurements show that
the current global atmospheric con-
centrations of carbon dioxide and
methane are unprecedented over
the past 650,000 years, even after
accounting for natural fluctuations
(see Figures I and 2).
Over the past 100,000 years, con-
centrations of nitrous oxide in the
atmosphere have rarely exceeded
280 ppb. Levels have risen steadily
since the 1920s, however, reaching
a new high of 323 ppb in 2009 (see
Figure 3).This increase is primarily
due to agriculture.14
Concentrations of manufactured
halocarbons (gases that contain
chlorine, fluorine, bromine, or io-
dine) were essentially zero a few de-
cades ago, but have increased rapidly
as they have been incorporated into
industrial products and processes
(see Figure 4 on page 16). Some
of these chemicals are now bein^
phased out of use because they also
cause harm to the Earth's ozone
layer, causing their concentrations to
stabilize. However, concentrations of
others continue to increase.
-------
Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases (continued)
Indicator Limitations
This indicator includes several of the most
important greenhouse gases, but some others
are not covered. The indicator also does
not address certain other pollutants that can
affect climate by either reflecting or absorb-
ing energy. For example, sulfate particles can
reflect sunlight away from the Earth, while
black carbon aerosols (soot) absorb energy.
Data Sources
The data in this indicator came from multiple
sources. Summary global atmospheric con-
centration data for carbon dioxide (Figure
I), methane (Figure 2), and nitrous oxide
(Figure 3) were provided by EPA's Office of
Atmospheric Programs, based on greenhouse
gas concentration measurements reported
in a collection of studies published in the
peer-reviewed literature. References for the
underlying data are included in the cor-
responding exhibits, and some data sets are
also available in electronic format at: www.
epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html.
Global atmospheric concentration data for
selected halocarbons (Figure 4) are a subset
of the data depicted in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assess-
ment Report.15
Figure 3. Global Atmospheric
Concentrations of Nitrous
Oxide Over lime
This figure shows concentrations of nitrous
oxide in the atmosphere from 100,000
years ago through 2009. The data come
from a variety of historical studies and
monitoring sites around the world.
104,301 BC to 2009 AD
350
300
~ 250
_o
= 200
u
i
-------
10,000 BC to 2009 AD
350
300
-10,000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000
Year [negative values = BC1
350
150
100
50
1950 AD to 2009 AD
concentration (nub]
hj hj
§ s
—
— <-
—I 1 1 1 1 1
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: 9000 BC to 1780 AD
Antarctica: 1756 AD to 1964 AD
i Antarctica: 1903 AD to 1976 AD
1 Cape Grim, Australia: 1979 AD to 2008 AD
South Pole, Antarctica: 1998 AD to 2009 AD
Barrow, Alaska: 1999 AD to 2009 AD
Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 2000 AD to 2009 AD
1,000
= 100
1975
Data source: IPCC, 2007
111
-------
Background
When energy from the sun reaches
the Earth, the planet absorbs some of
this energy and radiates the rest back
to space as heat. The Earth's surface
temperature depends on this balance
between incoming and outgoing energy. If
this energy balance is shifted, the Earth's
surface could become noticeably warmer
or cooler, leading to a variety of changes
in global climate.
A number of natural and man-made
mechanisms can affect the global energy
balance and force changes in the Earth's
climate. Greenhouse gases are one such
mechanism. Greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere absorb and re-emit some of
the outgoing energy radiated from the
Earth's surface, causing that heat to be
retained in the lower atmosphere. Some
greenhouse gases remain in the atmo-
sphere for decades or even centuries, and
therefore can affect the Earth's energy
balance over a long time period. Factors
that influence Earth's energy balance
can be quantified in terms of "radiative
climate forcing." Positive radiative forc-
ing indicates warming (for example, by
increasing incoming energy or decreasing
the amount of energy that escapes to
space), while negative forcing is associated
with cooling.
About the Indicator
The Annual Greenhouse Gas Index mea-
sures the average total radiative forcing
of 17 greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. This
index was calculated by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
based on measured concentrations of the
gases in the atmosphere. Because each
gas has a different capacity to absorb heat
energy, this indicator converts concentra-
tions into a measure of the total radiative
forcing (energy absorption) caused by
each gas.
The total radiative forcing of these gases
is then translated into one index value.
This value represents the ratio of the total
radiative forcing for that year compared
with the total radiative forcing in 1990.
Figure 1. The Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, 1979-2008
This figure shows the amount of radiative forcing caused by various greenhouse gases, based
on the concentrations present in the Earth's atmosphere. Radiative forcing is represented by
the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which is set to a value of I for 1990.
1.4
1.2
1990 = 1
1.0 l
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
CFC-12
CFC-11
12 other gases
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year
Data source: NOAA, 200918
Atmospheric Lifetime and "Global Warming Potential" of
Important Greenhouse Gases
Several factors determine how strongly a particular greenhouse gas will affect the
Earth's climate. One factor is the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere.
For example, a molecule of methane emitted today will last an average of 12 years
before decaying, while a molecule of sulfur hexafluoride will last for thousands of years.
Each gas also has its own unique ability to absorb energy and contribute to climate forc-
ing. By considering both the lifetime of the gas and its ability to absorb energy, scientists
have come up with an overall global warming potential for each gas, which is expressed
relative to the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gas Average lifetime in Global warming potential of one
the atmosphere molecule of the gas over 1 00 years
[relative to carbon dioxide = 1]
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
CFC-12
CFC-II
HFC-l34a
Sulfur hexafluoride
50-200 years*
1 2 years
1 20 years
1 00 years
45 years
1 4.6 years
3,200 years
1
21
310
1 0,600
4,600
1,300
23,900
18]
* Carbon dioxide's lifetime is poorly defined because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves be-
tween different parts of the ocean-atmosphere-land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed
quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Data source: EPA uses atmospheric lifetimes and global warming potentials from the Intergovernmental Pan-
el on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Second Assessment Report,19 as countries have agreed to do under current
international treaties within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Two exceptions are CFC-1 I and CFC-12, which are not covered under the UNFCCC and for which EPA is
using values from the IPCC's Third Assessment Report.20
-------
Key Points
In 2008, the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index was 1.26, an increase in radiative
forcing of 26 percent over 1990 (see Figure I). Carbon dioxide accounts for
approximately 80 percent of this increase.
Of the five most prevalent greenhouse gases shown in Figure I, carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide are the only two whose contributions to radiative
forcing continue to increase at a steady rate. By 2008, radiative forcing due
to carbon dioxide was 35 percent higher than in 1990.
Although the overall Annual Greenhouse Gas Index continues to grow, the
rate of increase has slowed somewhat over time. This change has occurred
in large part because methane concentrations have remained relatively
steady since 1990, and CFC concentrations are declining because most of
their uses have been banned (see Figure I).
Indicator Limitations
There are uncertainties and limitations in the
data and models used for deriving radia-
tive forcing values. In addition, the Annual
Greenhouse Gas Index does not consider
certain other climate forcing mechanisms.
For example, reflective aerosol particles in
the atmosphere can reduce radiative forcing,
while ground-level ozone can increase it.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator were provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. This figure and other information are
available at: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi.
&B&9,
..'
Ill II
11 Lift
// f
-------
Earth's Atmosphere
Meteors
I
Source: NOAA, 2009'
.obal
Temperature
Heat Waves
-------
Weather is the state of the atmosphere at any given time and place. Most weather takes
place in the lower layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere (see diagram of the Earth's
atmosphere at left). Familiar aspects of weather include temperature, precipitation,
clouds, and wind. Severe weather conditions include hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards.
Climate is the average weather in a given place, usually
over a period of more than 30 years. While the weather
can change in just a few hours, climate changes occur
over longer timeframes. Climate is defined not only by
average temperature and precipitation, but also by the
type, frequency, and intensity of weather events such as
heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods, and droughts. Cli-
mate has natural year-to-year variations, and extremes in
temperatures and weather events have occurred through-
out history.
Shifting storm patterns
will likely cause some
areas to experience
more droughts. Extreme
weather events such
as storms, floods, and
hurricanes will likely also
become more intense.
The Earth's climate depends on the balance between the amount of energy received from the
sun and the amount of energy that is absorbed or radiated back into space. Natural influences
can alter how much heat is reflected or absorbed by the Earth's surface, including changes in
the sun's intensity, volcanic eruptions, and multi-year climate cycles such as El Nino. Human
activities such as deforestation and the production of greenhouse gases also affect this bal-
ance. These alterations, in turn, affect climate on local, regional, and global scales.
Generally, increases in the Earth's surface temperature will increase evaporation from the
oceans and land, leading to more overall precipitation. However, this additional precipita-
tion will not be distributed evenly, and shifting storm patterns will likely cause some areas
to experience more severe droughts. Scientists have suggested that extreme weather events
such as storms, floods, and hurricanes will likely also become more intense. There is natural
variability in the intensity and frequency of such events, however, so care must be taken to
determine whether observed trends reflect long-term changes in the Earth's climate system.
Climate variations can directly or indirectly affect many aspects of human society—in both
positive and disruptive ways. For example, warmer temperatures might reduce heating costs
and improve conditions for growing some crops, yet extreme heat can cause illness or death
among vulnerable populations. Precipitation can replenish water supplies and nourish crops,
but intense storms can damage property, cause loss of life and population displacement, and
temporarily disrupt essential services such as transportation, telecommunications, and energy
and water supplies.
1
U.S. and Global
Precipitation
Heavy
Pronin
Precipitation
Tropical
Cyclone
Intensity
-------
U.S. and Global
This indicator describes trends in average temperature for the United States and the world.
Background
Temperature is a fundamental component
of climate, and it can have wide-ranging
effects on human life and ecosystems, as
many of the other indicators in this re-
port demonstrate. For example, increases
in air temperature can lead to more
intense heat waves, which can cause ill-
ness and death in vulnerable populations.
Temperature patterns also determine
what types of animals and plants can
survive in a particular place. Changes in
temperature can disrupt a wide range
of natural processes, particularly if these
changes occur abruptly and plant and
animal species do not have time to adapt.
As greenhouse gases trap more energy in
the Earth's atmosphere, average tempera-
tures at the Earth's surface are expected
to rise. However, because climate change
(both natural and human-driven) can
shift the wind patterns and ocean cur-
rents that drive the world's climate
system, some areas might experience
more warming than others, and some
might experience cooling. Changes in air
temperature can, in turn, cause changes
in sea surface temperature, precipitation
patterns, and other aspects of climate.
About the Indicator
This indicator examines U.S. and global
temperature patterns from 1901 to the
present. Data were provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which keeps historical
records from weather stations around
the world. U.S. surface measurements
come from stations on land, while global
surface trends also incorporate observa-
tions from buoys and ships on the ocean,
thereby providing data from sites span-
ning the entire surface of the Earth. For
comparison, this indicator also displays
data from satellites that have measured
the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere since 1979.
This indicator shows annual anomalies, or
differences, compared with the average
temperature from 1901 to 2000. Anoma-
lies are calculated in degrees for each
location, then averaged together.
Figure 1. Temperatures in the Lower 48 States, 1901-2009
This figure shows how average temperatures in the lower 48 states have changed since 1901.
Surface data come from land-based weather stations, while satellite measurements cover the
lower troposphere, which is the lowest level of the Earth's atmosphere (see diagram on p. 20).
"UAH" and "RSS" represent two different methods of analyzing the original satellite measure-
ments. This graph uses the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a
different baseline period would not change the shape of the trend.
1901-2009 trend:+1.25T per century
1979-2009 trend: Surface:+5.05T per century UAH:+4.00T per century RSS:+3.49T per century
13
I
1
ll JL. , h
Earth's surface Lower troposphere (measured by satellite)
UAH RSS
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Data source: NOAA, 20102
Figure 2. Temperatures Worldwide, 1901-2009
This figure shows how average temperatures worldwide have changed since 1901. Surface global data
come from a combined set of land-based weather stations and sea surface temperature measure-
ments, while satellite measurements cover the lower troposphere, which is the lowest level of the
Earth's atmosphere (see diagram on p. 20). "UAH" and "RSS" represent two different methods of ana-
lyzing the original satellite measurements. This graph uses the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline
for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the trend.
1901-2009 trend: +1.28°F per century
1979-2009 trend: Surface:+2.93T per century UAH:+2.30T per century RSS: +2.75°F per century
J .1.* I.J
I m r • •
I Earth's surface Lower troposphere (measured by satellite)
(land and ocean) UAH Rss
-3
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Data source: NOAA, 20103 Year
1990 2000 2010
22]
-------
Key Points
Since 1901, temperatures have risen across the lower 48 states at an aver-
age rate of 0.13°F per decade (1.3°F per century) (see Figure I). Average
temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.35 to 0.51 °F
per decade). Seven of the top 10 warmest years on record for the lower 48
states have occurred since 1990, and the last 10 five-year periods have been
the 10 warmest five-year periods on record.
Global average surface temperatures have risen at an average rate of 0.13°F
per decade since 1901 (see Figure 2), similar to the rate of warming within
the lower 48 states. Since the late 1970s, however, the United States has
warmed at nearly twice the global rate. Worldwide, 2000-2009 was the
warmest decade on record.
Some parts of the United States have experienced more warming than oth-
ers (see Figure 3). The North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures
increase the most, while some parts of the South have experienced little
change. However, not all of these regional trends are statistically meaningful.
Figure 3. Rate of Temperature Change in the United States, 1901-2008
This figure shows how average air temperatures have changed in different parts of the United
States since the early 20"1 century (since / 90 / for the lower 48 states, 1905 for Hawaii, and 1918
for Alaska).
Temperature change (°F per century):
Indicator Limitations
Data from the early 20th century are some-
what less precise because there were fewer
stations collecting measurements at the time.
However, the overall trends are still reliable.
Measurement instruments and methods (for
example, the time of day measurements are
taken) have also changed over time, and some
stations have moved.Where possible, the
data have been adjusted to account for these
kinds of changes.
Data Sources
The data for this indicator were provided by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration's National Climatic Data Center,
which maintains a large collection of climate
data online at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.
html. Surface temperature anomalies were
calculated based on monthly values from a
network of long-term monitoring stations.
Satellite data were analyzed by two indepen-
dent groups, resulting in the slightly different
"UAH" and"RSS" trend lines.
-3 -2-101
Gray interval: -0.1 to 0.1°F
Data source: NOAA, 2009"
|23
-------
Heat Waves
This indicator tracks the frequency of extreme heat events in the United States.
Background
A heat wave is a prolonged period of
abnormally hot weather. With an overall
warming of the Earth's climate, heat
waves are expected to become more fre-
quent, longer, and more intense in places
where they already occur.5 Increased
frequency and severity of heat waves can
lead to more illness and death, particu-
larly among older adults, the young, and
other vulnerable groups (see the Heat-
Related Deaths indicator on p. 58).
Excessive heat also can kill or injure
crops and livestock, and can lead to
power outages as heavy demands for air
conditioning strain the power grid.
About the Indicator
While there is no universal definition of
a heat wave, this indicator defines a heat
wave as a four-day period with an average
temperature that would only be expected
to occur once every 10 years, based on
the historical record.
This indicator reviews trends in the U.S.
Annual Heat Wave Index between 1895
and 2008. This index tracks the frequency
of heat waves across the lower 48 states,
but not the intensity of these episodes.
The index uses daily maximum tempera-
ture data from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, which keeps
records from weather stations through-
out the nation. Approximately 300 to
400 stations reported data from 1895 to
1910; over the last 100 years, the number
of stations has risen to 700 or more.
The index value for a given year could
mean several different things. For ex-
ample, an index value of 0.2 in any given
year could mean that 20 percent of the
recording stations experienced one heat
wave; 10 percent of stations experienced
two heat waves; or some other combina-
tion of stations and episodes resulted in
this value.
Figure 1. U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index, 1895-2008
This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. HeatWave Index from 1895 to 2008.
These data cover the lower 48 states.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Data source: CCSP, 2009'
Key Points
Heat waves occurred with high frequency in the 1930s, and these
remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record
(see Figure I). Many years of intense drought (the "Dust Bowl")
contributed to these heatwaves by depleting soil moisture and
reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.7
There is no clear trend over the entire period tracked by the in-
dex. Although it is hard to see in Figure I (because of the extreme
events of the 1930s), heat wave frequency decreased in the 1960s
and 1970s but has risen since then (see Figure I).
Like the heat wave index, the percentage of the United States
affected by heat waves has also risen steadily since the 1970s (see
Figures 2 and 3). The recent period of increasing heat is distin-
guished by a rise in extremely high nighttime temperatures.
24]
-------
Figure 2. Areas of the Lower 48 States With Hot Daily High
Temperatures, 1910-2008
This chart shows the percentage of the land area of the lower 48 states with summer
daily high temperatures well above normal. The bars represent individual years, while
the line is a smoothed nine-year moving average.
60
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Data source: CCSP, 2009s
Figure 3. Areas of the Lower 48 States With Hot Daily Low
Temperatures, 1910-2008
This chart shows the percentage of the land area of the lower 48 states with summer
daily low temperatures well above normal. The bars represent individual years, while
the line is a smoothed nine-year moving average.
£ 40
10
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
For additional perspective, this indicator also
looks at heat waves in terms of size (percent
of area affected) and the difference between
trends in daytime high temperatures and
trends in nighttime low temperatures.
Indicator Limitations
Temperature data are less certain for the
early part of the record because fewer sta-
tions were operating at that time. In addition,
measurement instruments and procedures
have changed over time, and some stations
have moved. The data have been adjusted to
account for some biases, however, and these
uncertainties are not sufficient to change the
fundamental trends shown in the figures.
This indicator does not consider humidity,
which can have additional health impacts
when combined with heat.
Data Sources
The data for this indicator are based on
measurements from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's National
Weather Service Cooperative Observer
Network. These weather station data are
available online at: www.nws.noaa.gov/os/
coop/what-is-coop.html.
Data source: CCSP, 2009'
-------
J.
This indicator measures drought conditions of U.S. lands.
Background
There are many definitions and types of
drought. Meteorologists generally define
drought as a prolonged period of dry
weather caused by a lack of precipitation,
which results in a serious water short-
age for some activity, group, or ecological
system. Drought can also be thought of as
an imbalance between precipitation and
evaporation.
As average temperatures rise because
of climate change, the Earth's water
cycle is expected to speed up, increasing
evaporation. Increased evaporation will
make more water available in the air for
precipitation, but contribute to drying
over some land areas. As a result, storm-
affected areas are likely to experience
increased precipitation (see the U.S. and
Global Precipitation indicator on p. 28)
and increased risk of flooding (see the
Heavy Precipitation indicator on p. 30),
while areas located far from storm tracks
are likely to experience less precipita-
tion and increased risk of drought. Since
the 1970s, drought-affected areas have
increased on a global scale—more likely
than not as a result of climate change
caused by human activities.10
Drought conditions can affect agricul-
ture, water supplies, energy production,
and many other aspects of society. The
impacts vary depending on the type,
location, intensity, and duration of the
drought. For example, effects on agri-
culture can range from slowed plant
growth to severe crop losses, while water
supply impacts can range from lowered
reservoir levels to major water shortages.
Lower stream flow and ground water
levels can also harm plants and animals,
and dried-out vegetation increases the
risk of wildfires.
About the Indicator
During the 20th century, many indices
were created to measure drought sever-
ity by looking at trends in precipitation,
soil moisture, stream flow, vegetation
health, and other variables." This indica-
tor is based on the U.S. Drought Monitor,
which integrates several of these indices.
(Continued on page 2 7)
Figure 1. U.S. Lands Under Drought Conditions, 2000-2009
This chart shows the percentage of U.S. lands classified under drought conditions from 2000 through
2009. The data cover all 50 states plus Puerto Rico.
DO Abnormally dry
D1 Moderate drought
D2 Severe drought
D3 Extreme drought
D4 Exceptional drought
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data source: National Drought Mitigation Center, 20I012
Key Points
Because data from the U.S. Drought Monitor are only available for the most
recent decade, there is no clear long-term trend in this indicator.With
continued data collection, future versions of this indicator should be able to
paint a more complete picture of long-term trends in drought.
Over the period from 2000 through 2009, roughly 30 to 60 percent of the
U.S. land area experienced drought conditions at any given time (see Figure
I). The years 2002,2003, and 2007 were relatively high drought years, while
2001,2005, and 2009 were relatively low drought years.
"Abnormally dry area" (DO)—the mildest drought event—was the most
commonly occurring level of drought in the United States between 2000
and 2009.
As of early 2010, moderate to severe drought is affecting parts of several
western states, along with a small portion of the Upper Midwest.13
26]
-------
Categories of Drought Severity
Category
DO
Dl
D2
Description
Abnormally dry
Moderate drought
Severe drought
Extreme drought
Exceptional drought
Possible Impacts
Going into drought: short-term dryness
slowing planting or growth of crops or
pastures. Coming out of drought: some
lingering water deficits; pastures or
crops not fully recovered.
Some damage to crops or pastures;
streams, reservoirs, or wells low; some
water shortages developing or immi-
nent; voluntary water use restrictions
requested.
Crop or pasture losses likely; water
shortages common; water restrictions
imposed.
Major crop/pasture losses; widespread
water shortages or restrictions.
Exceptional and widespread crop/
pasture losses; shortages of water in
reservoirs, streams, and wells, creating
water emergencies.
.
Experts update the U.S. Drought Monitor weekly and
produce maps that illustrate current conditions as
well as short- and long-term trends. Major partici-
pants include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and the National Drought Mitigation Center.
For a map of current
drought conditions, visit the
Drought Monitor Web site
at: www.drought.unl.edu/
dm/monitor.html.
The Drought Monitor also considers
additional factors such as snow water con-
tent, ground water levels, reservoir storage,
pasture/range conditions, and other impacts.
The Drought Monitor uses codes from
DO to D4 (see table at left) to classify
drought severity.This indicator measures
the percent of U.S. land under each of these
drought categories from 2000 through
2009.The indicator covers all 50 states and
Puerto Rico.
Indicator Limitations
Because of the relative newness of the
U.S. Drought Monitor, it cannot be used to
assess long-term trends. Other indicators
are available that do show historical trends,
but they have other weaknesses and cannot
be compared across geographic regions or
across time.14
The drought classification scheme used for
this indicator is produced by combining
data from several different sources. These
data are combined to reflect the collec-
tive judgment of experts and in some cases
are adjusted to reconcile conflicting trends
shown by different data sources over differ-
ent time periods.
The indicator gives a broad overview of
drought conditions in the United States. It is
not intended to replace local or state infor-
mation that might describe conditions more
precisely for a particular region.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator were provided by the
U.S. Drought Monitor. Historical data in table
form are available at: www.drought.unl.edu/
dm/DM_tables.htm?archive. Maps and current
drought information can be found on the
main Drought Monitor site at: www.drought.
unl.edu/dm/monitor.html.
|27.
-------
Background
Precipitation can have wide-ranging
effects on human life and ecosystems.
Rainfall, snowfall, and the timing of snow-
melt can all affect the amount of water
available for drinking and irrigation, and
can also determine what types of animals
and plants (including crops) can survive in
a particular place. Changes in precipita-
tion can disrupt a wide range of natural
processes, particularly if these changes
occur abruptly and plant and animal spe-
cies do not have time to adapt.
As average temperatures at the Earth's
surface rise (see the U.S. and Global
Temperature indicator on p. 22), more
evaporation and cloud formation occurs,
which, in turn, increases overall precipi-
tation.Therefore, a warming climate is
expected to increase precipitation in
many areas. However, just as precipitation
patterns vary across the world, so will the
effects of climate change. By shifting the
wind patterns and ocean currents that
drive the world's climate system, climate
change will also cause some areas to
experience decreased precipitation.
About the Indicator
This indicator examines U.S. and global
precipitation patterns from 1901 to
the present, based on rainfall and snow-
fall measurements from land-based
stations worldwide. Data were provided
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which keeps historical
records from weather stations around
the world.
This indicator shows annual anomalies, or
differences, compared with the average
precipitation from 1901 to 2000. These
anomalies are presented in terms of per-
cent change compared with the baseline.
Figure 1. Precipitation in the Lower 48 States, 1901-2009
This figure shows how the amount of precipitation in the lower 48 states has changed since 1901.
This graph uses the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different
baseline period would not change the shape of the trend.
20
15
1901-2009 trend: +6.43% per century
-15
-20
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Data source: NOAA, 201015
Figure 2. Precipitation Worldwide, 1901-2009
This figure shows how the amount of precipitation globally has changed since 1901. This graph uses
the 1901 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period
would not change the shape of the trend.
20
15
10
>*
~S 5
1901-2009 trend: +1.89% per century
LL
n
JJ
-10
-15
-20
1
1
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Data source: NOAA, 2010"
28]
-------
Precipitation
Key Points
Average precipitation has increased in the United States and worldwide (see
Figures I and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average
rate of 1.9 percent per century, while precipitation in the lower 48 states has
increased at a rate of 6.4 percent per century.
Some parts of the United States have experienced greater increases in pre-
cipitation than others. A few areas such as Hawaii and parts of the South-
west have seen a decrease (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Rate of Precipitation Change in the United States, 1901-2008
This fgure shows haw the amount of precipitation has changed in different parts of the United States
since the early 20* century (since / 90 / for the lower 48 states; since 1905 for Hawaii). Alaska is not
shown because of limited data coverage.
Change in precipitation [% per century]:
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gray interval:-2 to 2%
Data source: NOAA, 200917
Indicator Limitations
Data from the early 20th century are some-
what less precise because there were fewer
stations collecting measurements at the time.
However, the overall trends are still reliable.
Measurement instruments and methods have
also changed over time, and some stations
have moved.Where possible, the data have
been adjusted to account for these kinds of
changes.
Data Sources
The data for this indicator were provided by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration's National Climatic Data Center,
which maintains a large collection of climate
data online at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.
html. Global, U.S., and regional precipitation
anomalies were calculated based on monthly
values from a network of long-term monitor-
ing stations.
129
-------
Background
Heavy precipitation refers to instances
during which the amount of precipitation
experienced in a location substantially
exceeds what is normal.What constitutes
a period of heavy precipitation varies ac-
cording to the location and the season.
Climate change can affect the intensity
and frequency of precipitation.Warmer
oceans increase the amount of water
that evaporates into the air, and warmer
air can hold more moisture than cooler
air.When this moisture-laden air moves
over land, it can produce more intense
precipitation—for example, heavier rain
and snow storms.18 The potential impacts
of heavy precipitation include crop dam-
age, soil erosion, and an increase in flood
risk due to heavy rains. In addition, runoff
from precipitation can hurt water quality
as pollutants deposited on land wash into
water bodies.
Heavy precipitation does not necessarily
mean the total amount of precipitation
at a location has increased—just that
precipitation is occurring in more intense
events. However, changes in the intensity
of precipitation can also lead to changes
in overall precipitation totals.
About the Indicator
Heavy precipitation events can be
measured by tracking their frequency,
by examining their return period (the
chance that the event will be equaled or
exceeded in a given year), or by directly
measuring the amount of precipitation in
a certain period.
One way to track heavy precipitation
is by calculating what percentage of a
particular location's total precipitation
in a given year has come in the form of
extreme one-day events—or, in other
words, what percentage of precipitation
is arriving in short, intense bursts. Figure
I of this indicator looks at the prevalence
of extreme single-day precipitation events
over time.
(Continued on page 31)
Figure 1. Extreme One-Day Precipitation Events in the Lower 48 States,
1910-2008
This figure shows the percentage of the land area of the lower 48 states where a much greater than
normal portion of total annual precipitation has come from extreme single-day precipitation events.
The bars represent individual years, while the line is a smoothed nine-year moving average.
2000
2010
1910 1920 1930 1940
Data source: NOAA, 2009"
Figure 2. Abnormally High Annual Precipitation in the Lower 48 States,
1895-2008
This figure shows the percentage of the land area of the lower 48 states that experienced much
greater than normal precipitation in any given year, which means it scored 2.0 or above on the annual
Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). The thicker orange line shows a nine-year moving average that
smooths out some of the year-to-year fluctuations, while the straight black line is the trend line that fits
the data best
30]
2000
Data source: NOAA, 2009
-------
Key Points
In recent years, a larger percentage of precipitation has come in the form
of intense single-day events. Eight of the top 10 years for extreme one-day
precipitation events have occurred since 1990 (see Figure I).
The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly
steady between 1910 and the 1980s, but has risen substantially since then.
Over the entire period from 1910 to 2008, the prevalence of extreme single-
day precipitation events increased at a rate of about half a percentage point
per decade (5 percentage points per century) (see Figure I).
The percentage of land area experiencing much greater than normal yearly
precipitation totals increased between 1895 and 2008. However, there has
been much year-to-year variability. In some years there were no abnormally
wet areas, while a few others had abnormally high precipitation totals over
10 percent or more of the lower 48 states' land area (see Figure 2).
Figures I and 2 are both consistent with a variety of other studies that have
found an increase in heavy precipitation over timeframes ranging from single
days to 90-day periods to whole years.21 For more information on trends in
overall precipitation levels, see the U.S. and Global Precipitation indicator on
p. 28.
For added insight, this indicator also tracks
the occurrence of abnormally high total
yearly precipitation. It does so by looking at
the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI),
which compares actual yearly precipitation
totals with the range of precipitation totals
that one would typically expect at a specific
location, based on historical data. If a location
experiences less precipitation than normal
during a particular period, it will receive a
negative SPI score, while a period with more
precipitation than normal will receive a posi-
tive score. The more precipitation (compared
with normal), the higher the SPI score. The
SPI is a useful way to look at precipitation to-
tals because it allows comparison of different
locations and different seasons on a standard
scale. Figure 2 shows what percentage of
the total area of the lower 48 states had an
annual SPI score of 2.0 or above (well above
normal) in any given year.
Both parts of this indicator are based on data
from a large national network of weather sta-
tions compiled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Indicator Limitations
Weather monitoring stations tend to be
closer together in the eastern and central
states than in the western states. In areas
with fewer monitoring stations, heavy precipi-
tation indicators are less likely to reflect local
conditions accurately.
Data Sources
The data used for this indicator were pro-
vided by the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's National Climatic
Data Center. Figure I is based on Step #4
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's U.S. Climate Extremes Index;
for data and a description of the index, see:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html. Figure
2 is based on the U.S. SPI, which is shown in a
variety of maps available online at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/
prelim/drought/spi.html.The data and
metadata used to construct these maps are
available from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs.
-------
Background
Hurricanes, tropical storms, and other
intense rotating storms fall into a general
category called cyclones. There are two main
types of cyclones: tropical and extratropical.
Tropical cyclones get their energy from warm
tropical oceans, while extratropical cyclones
form outside the tropics, getting their energy
from the jet stream and from temperature
differences between the north and the south,
often involving cold fronts and warm fronts.
This indicator focuses on tropical cyclones
in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of
Mexico. Tropical cyclones are most common
during the "hurricane season," which runs
from June through November. The effects
of tropical cyclones are numerous and well
known. At sea, storms disrupt and endanger
shipping traffic.When cyclones encounter land,
their intense rains and high winds can cause
property damage, loss of life, soil erosion, and
flooding. The associated storm surge—the
large volume of ocean water pushed ashore
by the cyclone's strong winds—can also cause
severe flooding and destruction.
Climate change is expected to affect tropi-
cal cyclone intensity by increasing sea surface
temperatures, a key factor that influences
cyclone formation and behavior. According to
the U.S. Global Change Research Program, it is
very likely that increased levels of greenhouse
gases have contributed to an increase in sea
surface temperatures in areas where hurri-
canes form, suggesting a human contribution to
hurricane activity over the last 50 years.22 The
U.S. Global Change Research Program and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
project that tropical cyclones will become more
intense, with higher wind speeds and heavier
rains.23 However, observations of past cyclone
activity and projections of future activity have
uncertainties because of changes in monitoring
technology, longer-term regional climate pat-
terns, and the limitations of climate models.
About the Indicator
This indicator uses two related indices: the
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index
and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration uses the ACE Index to measure
the strength of individual tropical storms as
Tropical Cyclone
This indicator examines the intensity of hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 1. North Atlantic Cyclone Intensity According to the
Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, 1950-2009
This figure shows total annual Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index values from 1950 through
2009. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has defined "near normal,""above
normal," and "below normal" ranges based on the distribution of ACE Index values over the 50 years
from 1951 to 2000.
Above
normal
Below
normal
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
32]
-------
Key Points
When examining the entire ACE Index data series from 1950 to 2009, no
clear trends in cyclone intensity are apparent (see Figure I). However, inten-
sity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active
years have occurred since the mid-1990s. Comparable levels of activity were
also seen during the previous high-activity era which spanned the 1950s and
1960s.
The PDI (see Figure 2) shows a similar trend: fluctuating cyclone intensity
for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase
since 1995. These trends are closely related to variations in sea surface
temperature in the tropical Atlantic (see Figure 2), leading the U.S. Global
Change Research Program to conclude that hurricane activity has "increased
substantially since the 1950s and '60s in association with warmer Atlantic sea
surface temperatures."25
Figure 2. North Atlantic Cyclone Intensity According to the Power
Dissipation Index, 1949-2009
This figure presents annual values of the Power Dissipation Index (PDI). North Atlantic sea
surface temperature trends are provided for reference. Note that sea surface temperature uses
different units, but the numbers have been adjusted here to show how the trends are similar. The
lines have been smoothed using a five-year weighted average.
0.0
1950
1960
2000
2010
Data source: Emanuel, 20102'
well as the total cyclone activity over the course
of a hurricane season. An individual storm's ACE
Index value is a number based on the storm's
maximum wind speed measured at six-hour
intervals over the entire time when the cyclone
is classified as at least a tropical storm (that is, a
storm with a wind speed of at least 39 miles per
hour). Therefore, the ACE Index value accounts
for both cyclone strength and duration.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration calculates the ACE Index value for an
entire hurricane season by adding the ACE Index
values for all named storms in a season, including
subtropical storms, tropical storms, and hurri-
canes. For this indicator, the ACE Index has been
converted to a numerical scale where 100 equals
the median value (the midpoint) over a base
period from 1951 to 2000. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration has set specific
thresholds (see Figure I) to define whether the
ACE Index for a given year is close to normal,
significantly above normal, or significantly below.
For additional perspective, this indicator also
shows trends in the PDI. Like the ACE Index, the
PDI is based on measurements of wind speed,
but it uses a different calculation method that
places more emphasis on storm intensity. This
indicator shows the annual PDI value, which
represents the sum of PDI values for all named
storms during the year.
Indicator Limitations
Over time, data collection methods have changed
as technology has improved. For example, wind
speed collection methods have evolved substan-
tially over the past 60 years. How these changes
in data gathering technologies might affect data
consistency over the life of the indicator is not
fully understood.
Data Sources
The ACE Index data (Figure I) came from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion's Climate Prediction Center, and are avail-
able online at: www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/
outlooks/background_information.shtml. Values
for the PDI have been calculated by Kerry
Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology. Both indices are based on wind speed
measurements compiled by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
|33
-------
Ocean Heat
Sea Surface
Temperature
-------
The oceans and the atmosphere interact constantly—both physically
and chemically—exchanging heat, water, gases, and particles. This
relationship influences the Earth's climate on regional and global
scales. It also affects the state of the oceans.
Covering nearly 70 percent of the Earth's surface, the oceans store vast
amounts of energy absorbed from the sun and move this energy around
the globe through currents. As greenhouse gases trap more energy from
the sun, the oceans will absorb more heat, resulting in an increase in
sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and possible changes to ocean
currents. These changes will very likely lead to alterations in climate pat-
terns around the world. For example, warmer waters promote the devel-
opment of more intense storms in the tropics, which can cause property
damage or loss of life.
The oceans are also a key com'
ponent of the Earth's carbon
cycle. Over geological time,
much of the world's carbon
has come to reside in the
oceans, either within plants
and animals (living or dead)
or dissolved as carbon diox-
ide. Although the oceans can
Even if greenhouse gas
emissions are stabilized
tomorrow, it will take many
more years—decades or
centuries—for the oceans to
adjust to the climate changes
that have already occurred.
help lessen climate change by
storing a significant fraction of the carbon dioxide that human activities
emit into the atmosphere, increasing levels of dissolved carbon dioxide
can change the chemistry of seawater and harm certain organisms. These
effects, in turn, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity
of ocean ecosystems.
Changes in ocean systems generally occur over much longer time peri-
ods than in the atmosphere, where storms can form and dissipate in a
single day. The interactions between ocean and atmosphere occur slowly,
over many years—even decades. For this reason, even if greenhouse gas
emissions are stabilized tomorrow, it will take many more years—decades
or centuries—for the oceans to adjust to the climate changes that have
already occurred.
Ocean
Acidity
-------
cean Heat
indicator describes trends in the amount of heat stored in the world's oceans.
Background
When sunlight reaches the Earth's
surface, the world's oceans absorb
some of this energy and store it as heat.
The amount of heat in the ocean, or
ocean heat content, plays an important
role in the Earth's climate system for
several reasons. First, the amount of
heat absorbed by the ocean affects its
temperature. Sea surface temperature is
especially important (see the Sea Surface
Temperature indicator on p. 38) because
surface waters exchange heat with the air
and influence weather patterns. Deeper
waters also absorb heat, however.Water
also has a much higher heat capacity than
air, meaning the oceans can absorb larger
amounts of heat energy with only a slight
increase in temperature.
Greenhouse gases are trapping more
energy from the sun, and the oceans are
currently absorbing a significant frac-
tion of this extra heat.1 If not for the
large heat storage capacity provided
by the oceans, the atmosphere would
grow warmer at a much faster rate.2
Increased heat absorption can change
the dynamics of the ocean, however,
because many currents are driven by dif-
ferences in temperature. These currents
influence climate patterns and sustain
ecosystems—for example, coastal fishing
grounds that depend on upwelling cur-
rents to bring nutrients to the surface.
Because water expands slightly as it
gets warmer, an increase in ocean heat
content will also increase the volume of
water in the ocean, which is one cause of
the observed increases in sea level (see
the Sea Level indicator on p. 40).
About the Indicator
This indicator shows trends in global
ocean heat content to a depth of 700
meters (nearly 2,300 feet) from 1955
to 2008. The indicator measures ocean
heat content in joules, which is a unit of
energy.
(Continued on page 37)
Figure 1. Ocean Heat Content, 1955-2008
This figure shows changes in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2008. Ocean heat content is
measured in joules, a unit of energy, and compared against the long-term average, which is set at zero.
15.0
Long-term average
Levitusetal.
-7.5
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Data sources: Domingues et al., 2008;3 Ishii and Kimoto, 2009;4 Levitus et al., 2009s
36]
-------
Key Points
In three different data interpretations, the long-term trend shows that ocean
heat content has increased substantially since 1955 (see Figure I).
Although concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen at a steady rate
over the past few decades (see the Atmospheric Concentrations of Green-
house Gases indicator on p. 14), the rate of change in ocean heat content
can vary greatly from year to year (see Figure l).Year-to-year changes are
influenced by events such as volcanic eruptions and recurring ocean-atmo-
sphere patterns such as El Nino.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration collected these
data using a variety of ocean profiling instru-
ments launched from ships and airplanes
and, more recently, underwater robots. Thus,
the data must be carefully adjusted to ac-
count for different measurement techniques.
Scientists' understanding of how to correct
the data has evolved over time, leading to
changes in the trend line. Figure I shows
three different interpretations of the same
underlying data.
Indicator Limitations
Data must be carefully reconstructed and
filtered for biases because of different data
collection techniques and uneven sampling
over time and space.Various methods of cor-
recting the data have led to slightly different
versions of the ocean heat trend line. Scien-
tists continue to compare their results and
improve their estimates over time. They also
test their ocean heat estimates by looking at
corresponding changes in other properties
of the ocean. For example, they can check
to see whether observed changes in sea
level match the amount of sea level rise that
would be expected based on the estimated
change in ocean heat.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator were collected by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and were analyzed by
Domingues et al. (2008),6 Ishii and Kimoto
(2009),7 and Levitus et al. (2009).8
|37.
-------
Background
Sea surface temperature—the tempera-
ture of the water at the ocean surface—
is an important physical attribute of the
world's oceans. The surface temperature
of the world's oceans varies mainly with
latitude, with the warmest waters at
the equator and the coldest waters in
the Arctic and Antarctic regions. As air
temperatures change, so can sea surface
temperatures, as well as the ocean circu-
lation patterns that transport warm and
cold water around the globe.
Changes in sea surface temperature
can alter marine ecosystems in several
ways. For example, variations in ocean
temperature can affect what species
of plants and animals are present in a
location, alter migration and breeding
patterns, threaten fragile ocean life such
as corals, and change the frequency and
intensity of harmful algal blooms.9 Over
the long term, increases in sea surface
temperature also can reduce the amount
of nutrients supplied to surface waters
from the deep sea, leading to declines in
fish populations.10
Because the oceans constantly interact
with the atmosphere, sea surface tem-
perature also can have profound effects
on global climate. Based on changes in
sea surface temperature, the amount
of atmospheric water vapor over the
oceans is estimated to have increased by
about 5 percent during the 20th cen-
tury.1 ' This water vapor feeds weather
systems that produce precipitation, and
the increase in water vapor increases
the risk of heavy rain and snow (see the
Heavy Precipitation and Tropical Cyclone
Intensity indicators on p. 30 and p. 32,
respectively). Changes in sea surface
temperature can also shift precipitation
patterns, potentially leading to droughts
in some areas.
Sea Surface Temp
This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.
Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880-2009
This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world's oceans has changed since 1880.
This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different
baseline period would not change the shape of the trend. The shaded band shows the likely range of
values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
-1.5
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Data source: NOAA.20IO'2 Year
38]
-------
erature
Example of a Sea Surface Temperature Map
This Image is an example of a sea surface temperature map based on satellite measurements and
computer models."Warm"colors such as red and orange indicate warmer water temperatures.
Source: MAS A, 200813
Key Points
Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century. From 1901 through
2009, temperatures rose at an average rate of 0.12 degrees per decade.
Over the last 30 years, sea surface temperatures have risen more quickly at a
rate of 0.21 degrees per decade (see Figure I).
Sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades
than at any other time since 1880 (see Figure I).
The largest increases in sea surface temperature occurred in two key
periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from 1970 to the present. Sea surface
temperatures appear to have cooled between 1880 and 1910 (see Figure I).
About the Indicator
This indicator tracks average global sea
surface temperature from 1880 through 2009
using data compiled by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.Techniques
for measuring sea surface temperature have
evolved since the 1800s. For instance, the
earliest data were collected by inserting a
thermometer into a water sample collected
by lowering a bucket from a ship.Today,
temperature measurements are collected
more systematically from ships, as well as at
stationary buoys.
The data for this indicator have been care-
fully reconstructed and filtered to correct for
biases in the different collection techniques
and to minimize the effects of sampling
changes over various locations and times. The
data are shown as anomalies, or differences,
compared with the average sea surface tem-
perature from 1971 to 2000.
Indicator Limitations
Because this indicator tracks sea surface
temperature at a global scale, the data cannot
be used to analyze local or regional trends.
Due to denser sampling and improvements
in sample design and measurement tech-
niques, newer data have more certainty
than older data.The earlier trends shown
by this indicator are less precise because of
lower sampling frequency and less precise
sampling methods.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator were provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration's National Climatic Data Center
and are available online at: www.ncdc.noaa.
gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php.
These data were reconstructed from actual
measurements of water temperature, which
are available from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration at: http://icoads.
noaa.gov/products.html.
|39
-------
ea Level
indicator describes how sea level has changed overtime. The indicator describes
two types of sea level trends: absolute and relative.
Background
As the temperature of the ocean changes
(see the Sea Surface Temperature indicator
on p. 38), so does sea level. Temperature and
sea level are linked for two main reasons:
I. Changes in the volume of water and
ice on land (namely glaciers and ice
sheets) can increase or decrease the
volume of water in the ocean.
2. As water warms, it expands slightly—
an effect that is magnified over the
entire surface and depth of the oceans.
Changing sea levels can affect human ac-
tivities in coastal areas. For example, rising
sea levels can lead to increased flooding
and erosion, which is a particular concern
in low-lying areas. Sea level rise also can
alter ecosystems, transforming marshes
and other wetlands into open waters and
freshwater systems to salt water.
The sea level changes that affect coastal
systems involve more than just expand-
ing oceans, however, because the Earth's
continents can also rise and fall relative to
the oceans. Land can rise through processes
such as sediment accumulation (the process
that built the Mississippi Delta) and geologi-
cal uplift (for example, over long timeframes
as tectonic plates collide and build mountain
ranges, and over shorter timeframes as gla-
ciers melt and the land below is no longer
weighed down by heavy ice). In other areas,
land can sink because of erosion, sediment
compaction, natural subsidence (sinking due
to geologic changes), or engineering projects
that prevent rivers from naturally deposit-
ing sediments along their banks. Changes in
ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream can
also affect sea levels by pushing more water
against some coastlines and pulling it away
from others, raising or lowering sea levels
accordingly.
Scientists account for these types of
changes by measuring sea level in two dif-
ferent ways. Relative sea level is the height
of the ocean relative to the land elevation
at a particular location. In contrast, abso-
lute sea level strictly measures the height
of the ocean surface above the center
of the earth, without regard to whether
nearby land is also rising or falling.
Figure 1. Trends in Global Average Absolute Sea Level, 1870-2008
This graph shows how the average absolute sea level of the world's oceans has changed since 1870,
based on a combination of long-term tidal gauge measurements and recent satellite measurements.
Absolute sea level does not account for changes in land elevation. The shaded band shows the likely
range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
1
^™ Trend based on tidal gauges
Satellite measurements:
^— University of Colorado
^^ Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Data sources: CSIRO, 2009;14 University of Colorado at Boulder, 200915
40]
-------
Key Points
After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change, average sea levels
rose worldwide throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accel-
erated in recent years.16 When averaged over all the world's oceans, absolute
sea level increased at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1870 to 2008
(see Figure I). From 1993 to 2008, however, average sea level rose at a rate of
0.1 I to 0.13 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.
Relative sea level rose along much of the U.S. coastline between 1958 and
2008, particularly the Mid-Atlantic coast and parts of the Gulf coast, where
some stations registered increases of more than 8 inches (see Figure 2).
Meanwhile, relative sea level fell at some locations in Alaska and the Pacific
Northwest. At those sites, even if absolute sea level has risen, land elevation
has apparently risen faster.
While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent de-
cades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places.17
Relative sea level also has not risen uniformly because of regional and local
changes in land movement and long-term changes in coastal circulation patterns.
About the Indicator
This indicator presents trends in sea level
based on measurements from tidal gauges and
from satellites that orbit the Earth.Tidal gaug-
es measure relative sea level at points along
the coast, while satellite instruments measure
absolute sea level over nearly the entire ocean
surface. Many tidal gauges have collected data
for more than 100 years, while satellites have
collected data since the early 1990s.
Figure I shows trends in absolute sea levels
averaged over the entire Earth's ocean
surface.The long-term trend is based on tidal
gauge data that have been adjusted to show
absolute global trends through calibration
with recent satellite data. Figure 2 shows
trends at a more local scale, highlighting the
1958 to 2008 change in relative sea level at
76 tidal gauges along the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Gulf coasts of the United States.
Figure 2. Trends in Relative Sea Level Along U.S. Coasts, 1958-2008
This map shows changes in relative sea level from 1958 to 2008 at tidal gauge stations along U.S.
coasts. Relative sea level accounts for changes in sea level as well as land elevation.
Data source: NOAA, 2009"
Relative sea level change (inches):
-7.99 -5.99 -3.99 -1.99
to-6 to-4 to-2 toO
I
III
0.01 2.01 4.01 6.01 >8
to2 to4 to6 to8
Indicator Limitations
Relative sea level trends represent a combi-
nation of absolute sea level change and any
local land movement.Tidal gauge measure-
ments such as those in Figure 2 generally can-
not distinguish between these two different
influences without an accurate measurement
of vertical land motion nearby.
Some changes in relative and absolute sea
level can be due to multi-year cycles such as
El Nino, which affect coastal ocean tempera-
tures; salt content; winds; atmospheric pres-
sure; and currents. Obtaining a reliable trend
can require many years of data, which is
why the satellite record in Figure I has been
supplemented with a longer-term reconstruc-
tion based on tidal gauge measurements.
Data Sources
Absolute sea level trends were provided by
Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation and the Uni-
versity of Colorado.These data are based on
measurements collected by satellites and tidal
gauges. Relative sea level data are available
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which publishes an interactive
online map (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/
sltrends/slrmap.html) with links to detailed
data for each tidal gauge.
-------
Ocean Acidity
This indicator shows acidity levels in the ocean, which are strongly
affected by the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the water
Background
The ocean plays an important role in regulat-
ing the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. As atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide rise (see the Atmospheric
Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases
indicator on p. 14), the ocean absorbs more
carbon dioxide to stay in balance. Because of
the slow mixing time of the ocean compared
with the atmosphere, it can take hundreds
of years to establish a balance between the
atmosphere and the ocean.
Although the ocean's ability to take up
carbon dioxide is a positive attribute with
respect to mitigating climate change, these
reactions can have a negative effect on
marine life. Carbon dioxide from the atmo-
sphere reacts with sea water to produce
carbonic acid. Increasing acidity (measured by
lower pH values) reduces the availability of
chemicals needed to make calcium carbon-
ate, which corals, some types of plankton, and
other creatures rely on to produce their hard
skeletons and shells. The effect of declining
pH on shell-producing ocean organisms can
cause changes in overall ecosystem structure
in coastal ecosystems.19
While changes in ocean pH caused by the
uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide gener-
ally occur over long periods of time, some
fluctuation in pH can occur over shorter pe-
riods, especially in coastal and surface waters.
Increased photosynthesis during the day and
during summer months, for example, leads to
natural fluctuations in pH.
About the Indicator
This indicator presents ocean pH values
based on direct observations and model-
ing. Scientists have only begun to directly
measure ocean carbon dioxide and related
variables (dissolved organic carbon, alkalinity,
and pH) on a global scale during the last few
decades.
While direct observations are important in
monitoring recent ocean acidity changes, it
is even more important to examine trends
over longer time spans, given the slow rate at
which sea water balances with atmospheric
§
.22
Key Points
Measurements made over the last few decades have demonstrated that
ocean carbon dioxide levels have risen, accompanied by an increase in acidity
(that is, a decrease in pH) (see Figure I).
Modeling suggests that over the last few centuries, ocean acidity has in-
creased globally (meaning pH has decreased), most notably in the Atlantic
(see Figure 2).
Direct observations show that pH levels fluctuate more frequently in some
areas of the ocean than in others.20 More measurements are needed to bet-
ter understand the links between these natural fluctuations and long-term
changes in ocean acidity.
Figure 1. Ocean Carbon Dioxide Levels and Acidity 1983-2005
This figure shows changes in ocean carbon dioxide levels (measured as a partial pressure) and
acidity (measured as pH). The data come from two observation stations in the North Atlantic
Ocean (Canary Islands and Bermuda) and one in the Pacific (Hawaii). Dots represent individual
measurements, while the lines represent smoothed trends.
400
380
360
340
320
380
360
-S 340
320
300
8.14
8.12
8.10
8.08
8.06
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
380
360
340
320
300
4 H' '*
M r
„ 8.14
8.12
8.10
8.08
8.06
8.14
8.12
8.10
8.08
8.06
Hawaii
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
• * ' k
MV
42|
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Data source: Bindoff et al., 200721
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
-------
pH Scale
Acidity is commonly measured using the pH scale. Pure water has a pH of about
7, which is considered neutral. A substance with a pH less than 7 is acidic, while a
substance with a pH greater than 7 is basic or alkaline. The lower the pH, the more
acidic the substance. The pH scale is based on powers of 10, which means a sub-
stance with a pH of 3 is 10 times more acidic than a substance with a pH of 4. For
more information about pH, visit www.epa.gov/acidrain/measure/ph.html.
t
Increasing
Acidity
Neutral
Increasing
Alkalinity
I
1 1 1 Battery Acid
2 1 H Lemon Juice
3 1 1 Vinegar Acid Rain
Adult Fish Die
Fish Reproduction Affected
5 ^
Normal Range of Precipitation pH
Milk
7 _ Normal Range of Stream pH
8
Baking Soda
9 • Sea Water
10
• Milk of Magnesia
12 1 H Ammonia
13 I Lye
14 1
Source: Environment Canada, 200822
Figure 2. Historical Changes in Ocean Acidity 1700s-1990s
This figure shows changes in ocean pH levels around the world from pre-industrial times to the
present based on modeled data.
carbon dioxide. Because of the lack of histor-
ical observation data, modeling has been used
to make comparisons between pre-industrial
times and the present.
Indicator Limitations
Changes in ocean pH caused by the uptake
of atmospheric carbon dioxide tend to occur
slowly relative to natural fluctuations, so the
full effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations on ocean pH may not be seen
for many decades, if not centuries.
Ocean chemistry is not uniform throughout
the world's oceans, so local conditions could
cause a pH measurement to seem incorrect
or abnormal in the context of the global data.
Data Sources
Data for Figure I came from three ocean
time series studies: the Bermuda Atlantic
Time-Series Study, the Hawaii Ocean Time-
Series, and the European Station for Time-
Series in the Ocean (Canary Islands). Bermu-
da data were analyzed by Bates et al. (2002)24
and Gruber et al. (2002).25 Hawaii data were
analyzed by Dore et al. (2003),26 and Canary
Islands data were analyzed by Gonzalez-
Davila et al.(2003).27 Bermuda and Hawaii
data are available at:wwwl.whoi.edu.The
map in Figure 2 was created using Global
Ocean Data Analysis Project data, and the
figure was provided by the Pacific Science
Association Task Force on Ocean Acidifica-
tion. This map and other information are
available at: www.pacificscience.org/
tfoceanacidification.html.
-0.12 -0.1
Data source:Yool, 20072!
Change in pH at the ocean surface:
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
|43
-------
I
Arctic Sea I
-------
The Earth's surface contains many forms
of snow and ice, including sea ice, lake
and river ice, snow cover, glaciers, ice
caps and sheets, and frozen ground. Together,
these features are sometimes referred to as
the "cryosphere," a term for all parts of the
Earth where water exists in solid form.
Snow and ice are an important part of the
global climate system. Because snow and ice
are highly reflective, much of the sunlight that
hits these surfaces is reflected back into space
instead of warming the Earth. The presence
or absence of snow and ice affects heating and
cooling over the Earth's surface, influencing
the planet's energy balance.
The Cryosphere
Snow
[ ! Sea ice
E3 Ice sheets
| Glaciers and
ice caps
• Permafrost
[continuous!
H Permafrost
[discontinuous]
Permafrost
[isolated!
Source: UNER 2007'
Climate change can dramatically alter the Earth's snow- and ice-covered areas. Unlike other
substances found on the Earth, snow and ice exist relatively close to their melting point and
can change from solid to liquid and back again. As a result, prolonged warming or cooling
trends can result in observable changes across the landscape as snow and ice masses shrink or
grow over time.
Changes in snow and ice cover, in turn, affect air temperatures, sea levels, ocean currents, and
storm patterns. For example, melting polar ice caps add fresh water to the ocean, increasing sea
level and possibly changing currents that are driven by differences in temperature and salinity.
Because of their light color, snow and ice reflect more sunlight than open water or bare ground, so
a reduction in snow cover and ice causes the Earth's surface to absorb more energy from the sun.
Changes in snow and ice could not only affect communities and natural systems in northern
and polar regions, but also have worldwide implications. For example, thawing of frozen ground
and reduced sea ice in the Arctic could affect biodiversity on local and global scales, leading
to harmful effects not only on polar bears and seals, but also on migratory species that breed or
feed in these areas. These same changes could affect human societies in several ways, such as
by compromising food availability. For communities in Arctic regions, reduced sea ice could in-
crease coastal erosion and exposure to storms, threatening homes and property, while thawing
ground could damage roads and buildings. Reduced snow cover could diminish the beneficial
insulating effects of snow for vegetation and wildlife, while also affecting water supplies, trans-
portation, cultural practices, travel, and recreation for millions of people.
-------
eaice
This indicator tracks the extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Background
Sea ice is a key feature in the Arctic
Ocean. During the dark winter months,
sea ice covers nearly the entire Arctic
Ocean. In summer, some of this ice melts
because of warmer temperatures and
long hours of sunlight. Sea ice typically
reaches its minimum extent in mid-
September, then begins expanding again
through the winter.
The extent of area covered by Arctic sea
ice is considered a sensitive indicator of
global climate because a warmer climate
will reduce the amount of sea ice pres-
ent. Because sea ice is more reflective
than liquid water, it also plays a role in
regulating global climate by keeping polar
regions cool. (For more information on
the effects of surface color on reflecting
sunlight, see the Snow Cover indicator
on p. 52.) Thus, as the amount of sea
ice decreases because of increased air
temperatures, the Arctic region's ability
to stabilize the Earth's climate is reduced,
potentially leading to a "feedback loop"
of more absorption of solar energy, high-
er air temperatures, and even greater
loss of sea ice.
Arctic mammals, such as polar bears and
walruses, rely on the presence of sea ice
to preserve their hunting, breeding, and
migrating habits. These animals might
become threatened if birth rates decline
or access to food sources is restricted
Figure 1. September Average Arctic Sea Ice Extent, 1979-2009
This figure shows Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 through 2009 using data from September of each
year, which is when the minimum extent typically occurs.
E
£
0.5
0.0
1975
1985
1990
1995
2000 2005 2010
Year
Data source: NSIDC, 20092
-------
Key Points
The lowest sea ice extent on record occurred in September 2007. Com-
pared with the previous minimum set in September 2005, the 2007 total
reflected a loss of 490,000 square miles of sea ice—an area larger than Texas
and California combined (see Figure I).
Compared with the 1979 to 2000 average, the extent of Arctic sea ice in
2007 was lower by I million square miles—an area approximately the size of
Alaska and Texas combined (see Figure I).
Although September 2009 saw an increase in sea ice extent compared with
2007 and 2008, the 2009 sea ice extent was still 24 percent below the 1979
to 2000 historical average.
Although the annual minimum of sea ice extent typically occurs in September,
all months have shown a decreasing trend in sea ice extent over time.3
Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice
Source: NASA, 2009"
because of diminished sea ice. Impacts on
Arctic wildlife, as well as the loss of ice itself,
threaten the traditional lifestyle of indigenous
Arctic populations such as theYup'ik, Inupiat,
and Inuit. In addition to reducing the number
of animals available to hunt, diminished sea
ice extent and earlier melting can severely
limit hunting seasons and access to hunt-
ing grounds, making traditional subsistence
hunting more difficult.While diminished sea
ice can have negative ecological effects, it can
also present positive commercial opportu-
nities. For instance, reduced sea ice opens
shipping lanes and increases access to natural
resources in the Arctic region.
About the Indicator
This indicator reviews trends in Arctic sea ice
extent from 1979 to 2009. Sea ice extent is
defined as the area of ocean where at least
15 percent of the surface is frozen. Data
are collected throughout the year, but for
comparison, this indicator focuses on sea ice
extent data for September of each year. This
is because September is typically when the
sea ice extent reaches its annual minimum
after melting during the summer months.
Data for this indicator were gathered by the
National Snow and Ice Data Center using
satellite imaging technology.
Indicator Limitations
Increasing temperatures associated with
climate change are not the only factor
contributing to reductions in sea ice. Other
conditions, such as fluctuations in oceanic and
atmospheric circulation and typical annual
and decadal variability, also affect the extent
of sea ice. Additionally, changes in the age and
thickness of sea ice—a trend toward younger
and thinner ice—might also increase the rate
at which the ice melts in summer, making
year-to-year comparisons more complex.
Data Sources
The data for this indicator were provided
by the National Snow and Ice Data Center
and are available online at: http://nsidc.org/
data/seaice_index/archives/index.html. The
National Snow and Ice Data Center also
produces a variety of reports and a seasonal
newsletter analyzing Arctic sea ice data.
|47_
-------
Background
A glacier is a large mass of snow and ice
that has accumulated over many years and
is present year-round. In the United States,
glaciers can be found in the Rocky Moun-
tains, the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades,
and throughout Alaska. A glacier naturally
flows like a river, only much slower. It
accumulates snow at higher elevations,
which eventually becomes compressed
into ice. At lower elevations, the "river" of
ice naturally loses volume because of melt-
ing and ice breaking off and floating away.
When melting is exactly balanced by new
snow accumulation, a glacier is in equilib-
rium and is neither growing nor shrinking.
Glaciers are important to humans and eco-
systems because their normal melting pro-
cess provides a reliable source of stream
flow and drinking water, particularly late
in the summer when seasonal snowpack
has melted away. A large portion of Earth's
fresh water is found in glaciers, includ-
ing the polar ice sheets. Glaciers are also
important as an indicator of climate change.
Physical changes in glaciers—whether
they are growing or shrinking, advancing
or receding—provide visible evidence of
changes in temperature and precipitation. If
glaciers lose mass to melting and breaking
off (particularly the Greenland and Antarc-
tic ice sheets), they ultimately add more
water to the oceans, leading to a rise in sea
level (see the Sea Level indicator on p. 40).
About the Indicator
This indicator is based on long-term moni-
toring data collected at glaciers around the
world. At many glaciers, scientists collect
detailed measurements to determine mass
balance, which is the net gain or loss of
snow and ice over the course of the year.
A negative mass balance indicates that a
glacier has lost ice or snow. Looking at cu-
mulative mass balance over time will reveal
long-term trends. For example, if cumula-
tive mass balance becomes more negative
over time, it means glaciers are melting
faster than they can accumulate new snow.
Figure I shows the total change in volume
of glaciers worldwide since 1960, when
widespread measurement began to take
place. The overall change in volume was
determined by collecting all available
measurements, then estimating a global
trend based on the total surface area of
This indicator examines the balance between snow accumulation and melting in glaciers,
and describes how the size of glaciers around the world has changed over time.
Photographs of Muir Glacier, Alaska, 1941 and 2004
Sources: Field, 194 I ;5 Molnia, 2004'
Figure 1. Change in Volume of Glaciers Worldwide, 1960-2006
This figure shows the cumulative change in volume of glaciers worldwide beginning in 1960.
Negative values in later years indicate a net loss of ice and snow compared with the base year
of 1960. For consistency, measurements are in cubic miles of water equivalent, which means the
total amount of ice or snow lost has been converted to the equivalent volume of liquid water.
1990
2000
2010
Year
Data source: Dyurgerov, in press7
-------
Figure 2. Mass Balance of Three Typical U.S. Glaciers, 1958-2008
This figure shows the cumulative mass balance of the three U.S. Geological Survey "benchmark"
glaciers since measurements began in the 1950s or 1960s. For each glacier, the mass balance
is set at zero for the base year of 1965. Negative values in later years indicate a net loss of
ice and snow compared with the base year. For consistency, measurements are in meters of
water equivalent, which means the amount of ice or snow has been converted to the equivalent
amount of liquid water.
-35
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Data source: USGS, 2009s
Key Points
• Since 1960, glaciers worldwide have lost more than 2,000 cubic miles of water
(see Figure I), which in turn has contributed to observed changes in sea level
(see the Sea Level indicator on p. 40). The rate at which glaciers are losing
volume appears to have accelerated over roughly the last decade.
• All three U.S. benchmark glaciers have shown an overall decline in mass since
the 1950s and 1960s (see Figure 2). Year-to-year trends vary, with some glaciers
gaining mass in certain years (for example,Wolverine Glacier between 1986 and
1988). However, most of the measurements indicate a loss of mass over time.
• Trends for the three benchmark glaciers are consistent with the retreat of gla-
ciers observed throughout the western United States, Alaska, and other parts
of the world.9 Observations of glaciers losing mass are also consistent with
warming trends in U.S. and global temperatures during this time period (see the
U.S. and Global Temperature indicator on p. 22).
Glaciers Shown in Figure 2
iulkana Gl<
• 7
erine Glacier
AK Gulkana Glacier "
glaciers worldwide. Figure 2 shows trends for
three "benchmark" glaciers that have been ex-
tensively studied by the U.S. Geological Survey:
South Cascade Glacier in Washington state,
Wolverine Glacier near Alaska's southern coast,
and Gulkana Glacier in Alaska's interior. These
three glaciers were chosen because they are
representative of other glaciers in their regions.
Indicator Limitations
The relationship between climate change
and glacier mass balance is complex, and the
observed changes at the three U.S. benchmark
glaciers might reflect a combination of global and
local climate variations. Slightly different mea-
surement methods have been used at different
glaciers, but overall trends appear to be similar.
Long-term measurements are available for only
a relatively small percentage of the world's
glaciers, so the total global trend in Figure I is
also based in part on some of the best avail-
able estimates. The total in Figure I does not
include the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Other evidence suggests that these ice sheets
are also experiencing a net loss in volume.10
Data Sources
The University of Colorado at Boulder provided
the global trend in Figure I. Its analysis is based
on measurements collected from a variety of
publications and databases. An older version of
this analysis was published by the U.S. Global
Change Research Program in 2009,'' and the
latest version is expected to be published in the
scientific literature sometime in 2010.
The U.S. Geological Survey Benchmark
Glacier Program provided the data for Figure
2. These data, as well as periodic reports and
measurements of the benchmark glaciers, are
available on the program's Web site at:
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology.
-------
Background
The formation of ice cover on lakes in the
winter and its disappearance the follow-
ing spring depends on climate factors
such as air temperature, cloud cover, and
wind. Conditions such as heavy rains or
snowmelt in locations upstream or else-
where in the watershed also affect lake ice
duration. Thus, ice formation and breakup
dates are key indicators of climate change.
If lakes remain frozen for longer periods,
it can signify that the climate is cooling.
Conversely, shorter periods of ice cover
suggest a warming climate.
Changes in ice cover can affect the physi-
cal, chemical, and biological characteris-
tics of a body of water. For example, ice
influences heat and moisture transfers
between a lake and the atmosphere.
Reduced ice cover leads to increased
evaporation and lower water levels, as
well as an increase in water temperature
and sunlight penetration. These changes,
in turn, can affect plant and animal life
cycles and the availability of suitable
habitat. Additionally, ice cover affects the
amount of heat that is reflected from the
Earth's surface. Exposed water will ab-
sorb and retain heat, whereas an ice- and
snow-covered lake will reflect the sun's
energy rather than absorb it. (For more
information on ice and snow reflecting
sunlight, see the Snow Cover indicator
on p. 52.)
The timing and duration of ice cover
on lakes and other bodies of water can
also affect society—particularly shipping
and transportation, hydroelectric power
generation, and fishing. The impacts can be
either positive or negative. For example,
reduced ice cover on a large lake could
extend the open-water shipping season,
but require vessels to reduce their cargo
capacity because of decreased water levels.
About the Indicator
This indicator analyzes the dates at which
lakes freeze and thaw. Freeze dates are
when a continuous and immobile ice
cover forms over a body of water. Thaw
dates are when the ice cover breaks up
and open water becomes extensive.
(Continued on page 51)
Key Points
The time that lakes stay frozen has generally decreased since the mid- 1800s.
For most of the lakes in this indicator, the duration of ice cover has decreased
at an average rate of one to two days per decade (see Figure I).
The lakes covered by this indicator are generally freezing later than they did
in the past. Freeze dates have grown later at a rate of roughly half a day to
one day per decade (see Figure 2).
Thaw dates for most of these lakes show a general trend toward earlier ice
breakup in the spring (see Figure 3).
The changes in freeze and thaw dates shown here are consistent with other
studies. For example, a broad study of lakes and rivers throughout the
Northern Hemisphere found that since the mid-1800s, freeze dates have
occurred later at an average rate of 5.8 days per 100 years, and thaw dates
have occurred earlier at an average rate of 6.5 days per 100 years.12
Figure 1. Duration of Ice Cover for Selected U.S. Lakes, 1850-2000
This figure displays the duration (in days) of ice cover for eight U.S. lakes. The data are available
from approximately 1850 to 2000, depending on the lake, and have been smoothed using a
nine-year moving average.
175
125
100
50
0
1840
Data source:
NSIDC.2009'3
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
-Detroit Lake — LakeMendota —LakeMonona —Mirror Lake
Lake George — Lake Michigan LakeObego —Shell Lake
(Grand Traverse Bay)
50]
-------
Figure 2. Ice Freeze Dates for Selected U.S. Lakes, 1850-2000
This figure shows the "ice-on" date, or date of first freeze, for eight U.S. lakes. The data
are available from approximately 1850 to 2000, depending on the lake, and have been
smoothed using a nine-year moving average.
November 1
December 1
January 1
February 1
March 1
1840
Data source:
NSIDC.200914
>*V A/^vww
I860
1880
1900
1920
Year
1940
1960
1980
2000
— Detroit Lake — Lake Mendota — Lake Monona — Mirror Lake
Lake George —Lake Michigan LakeOtsego —Shell Lake
(Grand Traverse Bay)
Freeze and thaw dates have been recorded
through visual observations for more than
150 years. The National Snow and Ice Data
Center maintains a database with freeze and
thaw observations from more than 700 lakes
and rivers throughout the northern hemi-
sphere. This indicator focuses on eight lakes
within the United States that have the longest
and most complete historical records. The
lakes of interest are located in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York.
Indicator Limitations
Although there is a lengthy historical record
of freeze and thaw dates for a much larger
set of lakes and rivers, some records are
incomplete, ranging from brief lapses to large
gaps in data.This indicator is limited to eight
lakes with fairly complete historical records.
Data used in this indicator are all based on
visual observations. Records based on visual
observations by individuals are open to some
interpretation and can differ from one indi-
vidual to the next. In addition, historical ob-
servations for lakes have typically been made
from the shore, which might not be repre-
sentative of lakes as a whole or comparable
to more recent satellite-based observations.
Figure 3. Ice Thaw Dates for Selected U.S. Lakes, 1850-2000
This figure shows the "ice-off" date, or date of ice thawing and breakup, for eight U.S. lakes.
The data are available from approximately 1850 to 2000, depending on the lake, and have
been smoothed using a nine-year moving average.
March 1
April 1
Mayl
1840 1860
Data source:
NSIDC.2009'5
1880
1900
1920
Year
1940
1960
1980
2000
• Detroit Lake — Lake Mendota
Lake George —Lake Michigan
(Grand Traverse Bay)
— Lake Monona —Mirror Lake
LakeOtsego — Shell Lake
Data Sources
Data were obtained from the Global Lake
and River Ice Phenology Database, which is
maintained by the National Snow and Ice
Data Center. These data are available at:
http://nsidc.org/data/lake_river_ice.
[51
-------
This indicator measures the amount of land in North America that is covered by snow.
Background
The amount of land covered by snow
at any given time is influenced by many
climate factors, such as the amount of
snowfall an area receives and the tim-
ing of that snowfall. Air temperature
also plays a role because it determines
whether precipitation falls as snow or
rain, and it affects the rate at which snow
on the ground will melt. As temperature
and precipitation patterns change, so can
the overall area covered by snow.
Snow cover is not just something that is
affected by climate change; it also exerts
an influence on climate. Because snow is
white, it reflects much of the sunlight that
hits it. In contrast, darker surfaces such as
open water absorb more light and heat
up more quickly. In this way, the overall
amount of snow cover affects patterns
of heating and cooling over the Earth's
surface. More snow means more energy
reflects back to space, while less snow
cover means the Earth will absorb more
heat and become warmer.
On a more local scale, snow cover is
important for many plants and animals.
For example, some plants rely on a
protective blanket of snow to insulate
them from sub-freezing winter tempera-
tures. Humans and ecosystems also rely
on snowmelt to replenish streams and
ground water.
About the Indicator
This indicator tracks the total area cov-
ered by snow across all of North America
since 1972. It is based on maps generated
by analyzing satellite images collected by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The indicator was cre-
ated by analyzing each weekly map to
determine the extent of snow cover,
then averaging the weekly observations
together to get a value for each year.
Figure 1. Snow-Covered Area in North America, 1972-2008
This graph shows the average area covered by snow in a given year, based on an analysis of weekly
maps. The area is measured in square miles. These data cover all of North America.
5.0
=g 4.0
2
E
CO
CO
£ 3.0
0.0
1970 1975
1985 1990 1995
Year
2000
2005
2010
Data source: Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, 2009"
52]
-------
Indicator Limitations
Although satellite-based snow cover maps
are available starting in the mid-1960s, some
of the early years are missing data from sev-
eral weeks during the summer, which would
lead to an inaccurate annual average.Thus,
the indicator is restricted to 1972 and later,
with all years having a full set of data.
Because it examines only yearly averages,
this indicator does not show whether trends
in overall snow cover are being driven by
decreases in winter extent, summer extent
(at high elevations and latitudes), or both. An
analysis of more detailed weekly and monthly
data suggests that the largest decreases have
come in spring and summer.17
Data Sources
The data for this indicator were provided
by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab,
which posts data online at:http://climate.
rutgers.edu/snowcover. It is based on mea-
surements collected by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service at: www.nesdis.noaa.gov.
[53
-------
Background
Temperature and precipitation are key
factors affecting snowpack, which is the
amount of snow that accumulates on
the ground. In a warming climate, more
precipitation will be expected to fall as
rain, not snow, in most areas—reducing
the extent and depth of snowpack. Snow
will also melt earlier in the spring.
Mountain snowpack is a key component
of the water cycle in western North
America, storing water in the winter when
the snow falls and releasing it in spring
and early summer when the snow melts.
Millions of people in the West depend
on the springtime melting of mountain
snowpack for power, irrigation, and drink-
ing water. In most western river basins,
snowpack is a larger component of water
storage than man-made reservoirs.18
Changes in mountain snowpack can
affect agriculture, winter recreation, and
tourism in some areas, as well as plants
and wildlife. For example, certain types
of trees rely on snow for insulation from
freezing temperatures, as do some animal
species. In addition, fish spawning could
be disrupted if changes in snowpack or
snowmelt alter the timing and abundance
of stream flows.
About the Indicator
This indicator uses a measurement called
snow water equivalent to determine
trends in snowpack. Snow water equiva-
lent is the amount of water contained
within the snowpack at a particular
location. It can be thought of as the depth
of water that would result if the entire
snowpack were to melt.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and
other collaborators have measured snow-
pack since the 1930s. In the early years
of data collection, researchers measured
snow water equivalent manually, but since
1980, measurements at some locations
have been collected with automated
instruments.This indicator is based on
data from approximately 800 permanent
(Continued on page 55)
Figure 1. Trends in April Snowpack in the Western United States and
Canada, 1950-2000
This map shows trends in snow water equivalent in the western United States and pan of Canada.
Negative trends are shown by red circles and positive trends by blue.
o°
O
-80%
Percent change:
f J C J
+80%
+60%
+40%
54]
-------
Key Points
From 1950 to 2000, April snow water equivalent declined at most of the
measurement sites (see Figure I), with some relative losses exceeding 75
percent.
In general, the largest decreases were observed in western Washington,
western Oregon, and northern California. April snowpack decreased to a
lesser extent in the northern Rockies.
A few areas have seen increases in snowpack, primarily in the southern
Sierra Nevada of California and in the Southwest.
*
J
research sites in the western United States
and Canada.The indicator shows trends
for the month of April, which could reflect
changes in winter snowfall as well as the tim-
ing of spring snowmelt.
Indicator Limitations
Natural changes in the Earth's climate could
affect snowpack in such a way that trends
might slightly differ if measured over a differ-
ent time period. The 1950s registered some
of the highest snowpack measurements of
the 20th century in the Northwest.While
these values could be magnifying the extent
of the snowpack decline depicted in Figure I,
the general direction of the trend is the same
regardless of the start date.
Although most parts of the West have seen
reductions in snowpack, consistent with
overall warming trends shown in the U.S. and
Global Temperature indicator (p. 22), snowfall
trends may be partially influenced by noncli-
matic factors such as observation methods,
land use changes, and forest canopy changes.
Data Sources
Data for this indicator came from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service Water and Cli-
mate Center. The map was constructed using
methods described in Mote et al. (2005).20
The U.S. Department of Agriculture data are
available at: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov.
-------
Length of
Growing Season
Plant
Hardiness
Zones
-------
•
The indicators in this report show that changes are occurring
throughout the Earth's climate system, including increases in air
and water temperatures, a rise in sea level, longer growing seasons,
and longer ice-free periods on lakes and rivers. Changes such as these
are expected to present a wide range of challenges to human society and
natural ecosystems.
For society, increases in tern-
perature are likely to increase
heat-related illnesses and deaths,
especially in urban areas. Changes
in precipitation patterns will affect
water supplies and quality, while
more severe storms and floods will
damage property and infrastructure
(such as roads, bridges, and utili-
While species have adapted
to environmental change for
millions of years, climate
change could require
adaptation on larger and
faster scales than current
species have successfully
achieved in the past.
ties) or cause loss of life. Rising sea
levels will inundate low-lying lands, erode beaches, and cause flooding in
coastal areas. Climate change also will affect agriculture, energy produc-
tion and use, land use and development, and recreation.
Climate also plays an important role in natural ecosystems. An ecosystem
is an interdependent system of plants, animals, and microorganisms inter-
acting with one another and their environment. Ecosystems provide
humans with food, clean water, and a variety of other services that could
be affected by climate change. While species have adapted to envi-
ronmental change for millions of years, climate change could require
adaptation on larger and faster scales than current species have success-
fully achieved in the past. Climate change could also increase the risk of
extinction for some species.
The more the climate changes, the greater the risk of harm. The nature
and extent of climate change effects, and whether these effects will be
harmful or beneficial, will vary by time and place. The extent to which
climate change will affect different ecosystems, regions, and sectors of
society will depend not only on the sensitivity of those systems to climate
change, but also on their ability to adapt to or cope with climate change.
' .
Bird
Wintering
Ranges
-------
eat-Relate
This indicator reviews trends in heat-related deaths in the United States.
Background
When people are exposed to extreme
heat, they can suffer from potentially
deadly heat-related illnesses such as
hyperthermia, heat cramps, heat exhaus-
tion, and heat stroke. Heat is the leading
weather-related killer in the United
States even though many heat-related
deaths are largely preventable through
outreach and intervention (see EPA's
Excessive Heat Events Guidebook at:
www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/pdf/EHE-
guide_final.pdf).
Heat waves have become more frequent
in most of North America in recent de-
cades (see the Heat Waves indicator on
p. 24), and these events can be associated
with increases in heat-related deaths.
Older adults carry the highest risk
of heat-related death. Across North
America, the population over the age of
65 is expected to increase slowly until
2010, and then grow dramatically as the
baby boom generation ages. People with
certain diseases, such as cardiovascular
and respiratory illnesses, are especially
sensitive to heat.
About the Indicator
This indicator shows the number of
heat-related deaths each year in the
United States from 1979 to 2006, the
years for which national data are avail-
able. The indicator is based on data from
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, which maintains a data-
base that tracks all deaths nationwide.
Data in this indicator include only those
deaths for which excessive natural heat
was stated as the underlying cause of
death on the death certificate. Other
studies might consider a broader defini-
tion of "heat-related" by also including
deaths for which heat has been listed as
a contributing factor. For example, even
in a case where cardiovascular disease is
determined to be the underlying cause
of death, heat could have contributed by
making the individual more susceptible
to the effects of the disease.
Figure 1. Heat-Related Deaths in the United States, 1979-2006
This figure shows the annual number of heat-related deaths occurring in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia from 1979 to 2006*
750
600
450
300
150
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
2005
2010
Year
*Between 1998 and 1999, the World Health Organization revised
the international codes used to classify causes of death. As a
result, data from before 1999 cannot easily be compared with
data from 1999 and later.
Data source: CDC, 2009'
58]
-------
Key Points
Overall, during the 28 years of data collection (1979-2006), 6,367
deaths were classified as heat-related (see Figure I).
Considerable year-to-year variability in the number of heat-related
deaths makes it difficult to determine whether the United States
has experienced a meaningful increase or decrease in heat-related
deaths over time.
Dramatic increases in cases of heat-related mortality are closely
associated with the occurrence of heat waves, especially those of
1980 (St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri), 1995 (Chicago, Illinois),
and 1999 (Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago).
Indicator Limitations
Just because a death is classified as "heat-
related" does not mean that high tempera-
tures were the only factor that caused the
death. Pre-existing medical conditions can
significantly increase an individual's vulnerabil-
ity to heat. This indicator does not include
deaths for which heat was listed as a con-
tributing cause but not the official underlying
cause of death. Including deaths for which
heat was a contributing cause would substan-
tially increase the number of deaths shown
in Figure I. For example, the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reported 54
percent more deaths resulting from exposure
to extreme heat between 1999 and 2003
(totaling 3,442) when they included deaths
for which heat was a contributing cause.2
Heat waves are not the only factor that can
affect trends in "heat-related" deaths. Other
factors include the vulnerability of the popula-
tion, the extent to which people have adapted
to higher temperatures, the local climate and
topography, and the steps people have taken
to manage heat emergencies effectively.
Heat response measures can make a big
difference in death rates. These measures
can include early warning and surveillance
systems, air conditioning, health care, public
education, infrastructure standards, and air
quality management. For example, after a
1995 heat wave, the City of Milwaukee devel-
oped a plan for responding to extreme heat
conditions in the future. During the 1999 heat
wave, this plan cut heat-related deaths nearly
in half compared with what was expected.3
Data Sources
Data for this indicator were provided by
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and are available in the
CDC WONDER database in the Com-
pressed Mortality File at: http://wonder.cdc.
gov/mortSQLhtml. In the CDC WONDER
database for the period from 1979 to 1998,
heat-related mortalities were classified as
International Classification of Disease, Ninth
Revision (ICD-9) codes E900 "excessive
heat—hyperthermia" and E900.0 "due to
weather conditions." For the period from
1999 to 2006, deaths were classified as
ICD-10 code X30 "exposure to excessive
natural heat—hyperthermia."
[59
-------
Background
The length of the growing season in any
given region represents the number of
days when plant growth takes place.The
growing season often determines which
crops can be grown in an area, as some
crops require long growing seasons, while
others mature rapidly. Growing season
length is limited by many different fac-
tors. Depending on the region and the
climate, the growing season is influenced
by air temperatures, frost days, rainfall, or
daylight hours.
Changes in the length of the growing
season can have both positive and negative
effects. Moderate warming can benefit
crop and pasture yields in mid- to high-
latitude regions, yet even slight warming
decreases yields in seasonally dry and low-
latitude regions.4 A longer growing season
could allow farmers to diversify crops or
have multiple harvests from the same plot.
However, it could also limit the types of
crops grown, encourage invasive species
or weed growth, or strain water supplies.
A longer growing season could also
disrupt the function and structure of
a region's ecosystems, and could, for
example, alter the range and types of
animal species in the area.
About the Indicator
This indicator looks at the length of the
growing season in the lower 48 states, as
well as trends in the timing of spring and
fall frosts. For this indicator, the length
of the growing season is defined as the
period of time between the last frost of
spring and the first frost of fall, when the
air temperature drops below the freezing
point of 32°f.
Trends in the growing season were cal-
culated using temperature data from 794
weather stations throughout the lower
48 states. These data were obtained from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Climatic Data
Center. Growing season length and the
timing of spring and fall frosts were aver-
aged spatially, then compared with a long-
term average to determine the deviation
from "normal" in any given year.
ength of Growing
This indicator measures the length of the growing season in the lower 48 states.
Figure 1. Length of Growing Season in the Lower 48 States, 1900-2002
This figure shows the length of the growing season in the lower 48 states compared with a long-term
average. For each year, the line represents the number of days shorter or longer than average. The
trend line was smoothed using an 11-year moving average. Choosing a different long-term average for
comparison would not change the shape of the trend.
-10
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Data source: Kunkel, 2009s
Figure 2. Length of Growing Season in the Lower 48 States, 1900-2002:
West Versus East
This figure shows the length of the growing season in the western and eastern United States
compared with a long-term average. The trend line was smoothed using an 11-year moving average.
Choosing a different long-term average for comparison would not change the shape of the trends.
20
-10
-15
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
Data source: Kunkel, 2009'
1990 2000
60]
-------
Key Points
The average length of the growing season in the lower 48 states has in-
creased by about two weeks since the beginning of the 20th century.
A particularly large and steady increase occurred over the last 30 years
(see Figure I).
The length of the growing season has increased more rapidly in the West
than in the East. In the West, the length of the growing season has increased
at an average rate of about 20 days per century since 1900, compared with a
rate of about six days per century in the East (see Figure 2).
The final spring frost is now occurring earlier than at any point since 1900,
and the first fall frosts are arriving later. Since 1985, the last spring frost has
arrived an average of about four days earlier than the long-term average, and
the first fall frost has arrived about three days later (see Figure 3).
Indicator Limitations
Changes in measurement techniques and
instruments over time can affect trends.
However, these data were carefully reviewed
for quality, and values that appeared invalid
were not included in the indicator. This indi-
cator only includes weather stations that did
not have many missing data points.
Data Sources
All three figures are based on data compiled
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Climatic Data
Center, and these data are available online
at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Trends
were analyzed by Kunkel (2009).8
Figure 3. liming of Last Spring Frost and First Fall Frost in the Lower
48 States, 1900-2002
This figure shows the timing of the last spring frost and the first fall frost in the lower 48 states
compared with a long-term average. Positive values indicate that the frost occurred later in the
year, and negative values indicate that the frost occurred earlier in the year. The trend lines
were smoothed using an 11-year moving average. Choosing a different long-term average for
comparison would not change the shape of the trends.
1900
Data source: Kunkel, 2009
-------
This indicator examines shifts in plant hardiness zones in the lower 48 states.
Background
Plant hardiness zones are regional designa-
tions that help farmers and gardeners de-
termine which plant species are expected
to survive a typical winter. Locations are
assigned a numbered plant hardiness zone
based on an average of the lowest tem-
peratures recorded each winter.
Average annual minimum temperature
is used to determine hardiness zones
because a single low temperature event
such as a freeze is far more likely to
harm plants than a single high-temper-
ature event, such as an unusually warm
day. Minimum temperature is considered
a critical factor in a plant's ability to
survive in a particular location.
As temperatures increase, plants are able
to survive winters in areas that were
previously too cold for them to thrive.
These changes in growing patterns can
influence agricultural production, and
changes in wild plant distribution can
have wide-ranging effects on ecosystems.
For instance, the animal species present
in a location could change as the animals
move to seek out their preferred food
source, or an invasive plant could harm
native plant species.
About the Indicator
The U.S. Department of Agriculture first
published a plant hardiness zone map of
the United States in I960,and revised
the map in 1990. This map is divided
into numbered zones based on average
annual low temperatures in 10-degree
increments. For example, areas in Zone
7 have an average annual minimum
temperature of 0 to IO°F, while areas in
Zone 8 have an average annual minimum
temperature of 10 to 20° F.
In 2006, the Arbor Day Foundation
revised the map based on 15 years of
temperature data collected by 5,000
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration weather stations across
the United States. To determine how
plant hardiness zones have shifted over
time, this indicator compares the 1990
U.S. Department of Agriculture hardi-
ness zone map with the 2006 Arbor Day
Foundation hardiness zone map.
Figure 1. United States Plant Hardiness Zones, 1990 and 2006
This figure depicts plant hardiness zones in the lower 48 states in 1990 and 2006.
1990
x^_^r -
2006
Plant hardiness zones:
10
Data source:Arbor Day Foundation, 20069
62]
-------
Key Points
Between 1990 and 2006, hardiness zones have shifted noticeably northward,
reflecting warmer winter temperatures (see Figures I and 2).
Large portions of several states have warmed by at least one hardiness zone;
for example, large parts of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri have shifted
from Zone 5 to Zone 6, reflecting a sizable increase in average low tempera-
tures (see Figures I and 2).
A few scattered areas, mostly in the West, have cooled by one hardiness
zone, while a few smaller areas have cooled by two hardiness zones (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2. United States Plant Hardiness Zones, 1990 Versus 2006
This figure depicts changes in plant hardiness zones in the lower 48 states between 1990 and 2006.
+2 |
+1
Zone change:
No change
Data source:Arbor Day Foundation, 2006'°
Indicator Limitations
Changes in plant hardiness zones do not
address maximum temperatures or the
amount of precipitation present in a location,
which can also affect plants' ability to thrive.
Plant hardiness zones also do not take into
account the regularity and amount of snow
cover, elevation, soil drainage, and the regular-
ity of freeze and thaw cycles. As a result,
plant hardiness zone maps are less useful in
the western United States, where elevation
and precipitation vary widely. For example,
both Tucson, Arizona, and Seattle, Washington,
are in Zone 9 according to the 2006 map;
however, the native vegetation in the two
cities is very different.
Data Sources
The maps used in this indicator are avail-
able online at: www.arborday.org/media/
map_change.cfm. The data used to create the
map were provided by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climatic Data Center, which provides tem-
perature data and maps through its Web site
at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html.
-------
Background
The timing of natural events, such as
flower blooms and animal migration, is in-
fluenced by changes in climate. Phenology
is the study of such important seasonal
events. Phenological events are influenced
by a combination of climate factors,
including light, temperature, rainfall, and
humidity.
Scientists have very high confidence that
recent warming trends in global climate
are linked to an earlier arrival of spring
events.1' Disruptions in the timing of
these events can have a variety of impacts
on ecosystems and human society. For
example, an earlier spring might lead to
longer growing seasons (see the Length
of Growing Season indicator on p. 60),
more abundant invasive species and pests,
and earlier and longer allergy seasons.
Because of their close connection with
climate, the timing of phenological events
can be accurate indicators of climate
change. Some phenological indicators
cover broad trends, such as overall "leaf-
on" dates (when trees grow new leaves in
the spring), using a combination of satellite
data and ground observations. Others
rely on ground observations that look
at specific types or species of plants or
animals. Two particularly useful indicators
of the timing of spring events are the first
leaf date and the first bloom date of lilacs
and honeysuckles, which have an easily
monitored flowering season, relatively high
survival rate, and large geographic distri-
bution (see map of lilac range at right).
The first leaf date in these plants relates
to the timing of "early spring," while the
first bloom date is consistent with the
timing of later spring events such as the
start of growth in forest vegetation.12
About the Indicator
This indicator shows trends in the tim-
ing of first leaf dates and first bloom
dates in lilacs and honeysuckles across
much of the lower 48 states (see map at
right). Because many of the phenological
observation records in the United States
are less than 20 years long, models have
been used to provide a more complete
understanding of long-term trends.
Figure 1. First Leaf Dates in the Lower 48 States, 1900-2008
This figure shows modeled trends in lilac and honeysuckle first leaf dates across the lower 48 states,
using the 1961 to 1990 average as a baseline. Positive values indicate that leaf growth began later
in the year, and negative values indicate that leafing occurred earlier. The thicker line was smoothed
using a nine-year weighted average. Choosing a different long-term average for comparison would
not change the shape of the trend.
is
— 10 •
i o
-15
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
Data source: Schwartz, 200913
Range of Lilacs Covered in This Indicator
1990 2000 2010
Source: Schwartz, 200914
64]
-------
Key Points
First leaf growth in lilacs and honeysuckles in the lower 48 states is now
occurring a few days earlier than it did in the early 1900s. Although the data
show a great deal of year-to-year variability, a noticeable change seems to
have begun around the 1980s (see Figure I).
Lilacs and honeysuckles are also blooming slightly earlier than in the past.
However, the data show a high degree of year-to-year variability, which
makes it difficult to determine whether this change is statistically meaningful
(see Figure 2).
Other studies have looked at trends in leaf and bloom dates across all of
North America and the entire Northern Hemisphere. These other stud-
ies have also found a trend toward earlier spring events, and many of these
trends are more pronounced than the trends seen in just the lower 48
Figure 2. First Bloom Dates in the Lower 48 States, 1900-2008
This figure shows modeled trends in lilac and honeysuckle bloom dates across the lower 48 states,
using the 1961 to 1990 average as a baseline. Positive values indicate that blooming occurred
later in the year, and negative values indicate that blooming occurred earlier. The thicker line was
smoothed using a nine-year weighted average. Choosing a different long-term average for compari-
son would not change the shape of the trend.
is
-10
-15
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Data source: Schwartz, 2009"
The models for this indicator were developed
using data from the USA National Phenology
Network, which collects ground observa-
tions from a network of federal agencies,
field stations, educational institutions, and
citizen scientists who have been trained to log
observations of leaf and bloom dates. For con-
sistency, observations were limited to a few
specific types of lilacs and honeysuckles. Next,
models were created to relate actual leaf and
bloom observations with records from nearby
weather stations. Once scientists were able to
determine the relationship between leaf and
bloom dates and climate factors (particularly
temperatures), they used this knowledge to
estimate leaf and bloom dates for earlier years
based on historical weather records.
This indicator uses data from several hun-
dred weather stations throughout the area
where lilacs and honeysuckles grow. The
exact number of stations varies from year
to year. For each year, the timing of first leaf
and first bloom at each station was compared
with the 1961 to 1990 average to determine
the number of days' "deviation from normal."
This indicator presents the average deviation
across all stations.
Indicator Limitations
Plant phenological events are studied using
several data collection methods, including sat-
ellite images, models, and direct observations.
The use of varying data collection methods in
addition to the use of different phenological
indicators (such as leaf or bloom dates for
different types of plants) can lead to a range
of estimates of the arrival of spring.
Climate is not the only factor that can affect
phenology. Observed variations can also
reflect plant genetics, changes in the sur-
rounding ecosystem, and other factors. This
indicator minimizes genetic influences by
relying on cloned plant species (that is, plants
with no genetic differences).
Data Sources
Leaf and bloom observations were compiled
by the USA National Phenology Network
and are available at: www.usanpn.org. This
indicator is also based on climate data that
were provided by the U.S. Historical Climatol-
ogy Network and are available at:www.ncdc.
noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn. Data for
this indicator were analyzed using methods
described by Schwartz et al. (2006).17
-------
Background
66]
Changes in climate can affect ecosystems by
influencing animal behavior and distribution. Birds
are a particularly good indicator of environmental
change for several reasons:
• Each species of bird has adapted to certain
habitat types, food sources, and tem-
perature ranges. In addition, the timing of
certain events in their life cycles—such as
migration and reproduction—is driven by
cues from the environment. For example,
many North American birds follow a
regular seasonal migration pattern, moving
north to feed and breed in the summer,
then moving south to spend the winter
in warmer areas. Changing conditions can
influence the distribution of both migra-
tory and nonmigratory birds as well as the
timing of important life-cycle events.
• Birds are easy to identify and count, and
thus there is a wealth of scientific knowl-
edge about their distribution and abun-
dance. People have kept detailed records of
bird observations for more than a century.
• There are many different species of birds
living in a variety of habitats, including water
birds, coastal birds, and land birds. If a change
in habitats or habits is seen across a range of
bird types, it suggests that a common force
might be contributing to that change.
Temperature and precipitation patterns are
changing across the United States (see the U.S.
and Global Temperature indicator on p. 22
and the U.S. and Global Precipitation indica-
tor on p. 28). Some bird species can adapt to
generally warmer temperatures by changing
where they live—for example, by migrating fur-
ther north in the summer but not as far south
in the winter, or by shifting inland as winter
temperature extremes grow less severe.
Nonmigratory species might shift as well,
expanding into newly suitable habitats while
moving out of areas that become less suit-
able. Other types of birds might not adapt to
changing conditions, and might experience a
population decline as a result. Climate change
can also alter the timing of events that are
based on temperature cues, such as migration
and breeding (especially egg-laying).
About the Indicator
This indicator looks at the "center of abun-
dance" of 305 widespread North American bird
species over a 40-year period. The center of
(Continued on page 67)
Figure 1. Change in Latitude of Bird Center of Abundance, 1966-2005
This figure shows annual change in latitude of bird center of abundance for 305 widespread bird
species in North America from 1966 to 2005. Each winter is represented by the year in which it
began (for example, winter 2005-2006 is shown as 2005). The shaded band shows the likely range
of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
60
so
40
Data source: National Audubon Society, 2009
2005
-------
Key Points
Among 305 widespread North American bird species, the average mid-
December to early January center of abundance moved northward between
1966 and 2005. The average species shifted northward by 35 miles during
this period (see Figure I).Trends in center of abundance are closely related
to winter temperatures.19
On average, bird species have also moved their wintering grounds farther
from the coast since the 1960s (see Figure 2).
Some species have moved farther than others. Of the 305 species studied,
177 (58 percent) have shifted their wintering grounds significantly to the
north since the 1960s, but some others have not moved at all. A few species
have moved northward by as much as 200 to 400 miles.20
Figure 2. Change in Distance to Coast of Bird Center of Abundance,
1966-2005
This figure shows annual change in distance to the coast of bird center of abundance for 305
widespread bird species in North America from 1966 to 2005. Each winter is represented by the
year in which it began (for example, winter 2005-2006 is shown as 2005). The shaded band shows
the likely range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the
methods used.
35
30
20
2000
2005
Data source: National Audubon Society, 200921
abundance is a point on the map that represents
the middle of each species' distribution. If a whole
population of birds were to shift generally north-
ward, one would see the center of abundance shift
northward as well.
For year-to-year consistency, this indicator uses
observations from the National Audubon Society's
Christmas Bird Count, which takes place every
year in early winter. The Christmas Bird Count is
a long-running citizen science program in which
individuals are organized by the National Audubon
Society, Bird Studies Canada, local Audubon chap-
ters, and other bird clubs to identify and count
bird species. The data presented in this indicator
were collected from more than 2,000 locations
throughout the United States and parts of Canada.
At each location, skilled observers follow a stan-
dard counting procedure to estimate the number
of birds within a 15-mile diameter "count circle"
over a 24-hour period. Study methods remain gen-
erally consistent from year to year. Data produced
by the Christmas Bird Count go through several
levels of review before Audubon scientists analyze
the final data, which have been used to support a
wide variety of peer-reviewed studies.
Indicator Limitations
Many factors can influence bird ranges, including
food availability, habitat alteration, and interac-
tions with other species. As a result, some of
the birds covered in this indicator might have
moved north for reasons other than changing
temperatures.This indicator also does not show
how responses to climate change vary among
different types of birds. For example, a more
detailed National Audubon Society analysis
found large differences between coastal birds,
grassland birds, and birds adapted to feeders,
which all have varying abilities to adapt to tem-
perature changes.22
Some data variations can be caused by differ-
ences between count circles, such as incon-
sistent level of effort by volunteer observers,
but these differences are carefully corrected in
Audubon's statistical analysis.
Data Sources
Bird center of abundance data were collected
by the annual Christmas Bird Count organized
by the National Audubon Society and Bird
Studies Canada. Recent and historical Christmas
Bird Count data are available at: www.audu-
bon.org/Bird/cbc. Data for this indicator were
analyzed by the National Audubon Society in
200923 and are available at: www.audubon.org/
bird/bacc/index.html.
|67.
-------
Conclusion
The indicators in this report present compelling evidence that the composition of the
atmosphere and many fundamental measures of climate in the United States are chang-
ing. These changes include rising air and water temperatures, more heavy precipitation,
and, over the last several decades, more frequent heat waves and intense Atlantic hurri-
canes. Assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
U.S. Global Change Research Program have linked many of these changes to increasing
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, which are also documented in this report.
Analysis of the indicators presented here suggests that these climate changes are affecting
the environment in ways that are important for society and ecosystems. Sea levels are rising,
snow cover is decreasing, glaciers are melting, and planting zones are shifting (see Summary
of Key Findings on p. 4). Although the indicators in this report were developed from some
of the most complete data sets currently available, they represent just a small sample of the
growing portfolio of potential indicators. Considering that future warming projected for the
21st century is very likely to be greater than observed warming over the past century,1 indi-
cators of climate change should only become more clear, numerous, and compelling.
As new and more complete indicator data become available, EPA plans to update the
indicators presented in this report and provide additional indicators that can more compre-
hensively document climate change and its effects. Identifying and analyzing indicators will
improve our understanding of climate change, validate projections of future change, and,
importantly, assist us in evaluating efforts to slow climate change and adapt to its effects.
Looking ahead, EPA will continue to work in partnership with other agencies, organiza-
tions, and individuals to collect useful data and to craft informed policies and programs
based on this knowledge.
-------
Climate Change Resources
EPA's Climate Change Web site (www.epa.gov/climatechange) provides a good starting
point for further exploration of this topic. From this site, you can:
• Learn more about greenhouse gases and the science of climate change.
• Get to know EPA's regulatory initiatives and partnership programs.
• Search EPA's database of frequently asked questions about climate change and ask your
own questions.
• Read about greenhouse gas emissions and look through EPA's greenhouse gas inventories.
• Get up-to-date news on climate change.
• Find out what you can do at home, on the road, at work, and at school to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Discover the potential impacts of climate change on human health and ecosystems.
• Explore U.S. climate policy and climate economics.
Many other government and nongovernment Web sites also provide information about
climate change. Here are some examples:
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international authority
on climate change science. The IPCC Web site (www.ipcc.ch/index.htm) summarizes the
current state of scientific knowledge about climate change.
• The U.S. Global Change Research Program (www.globalchange.gov) is a multi-agency
effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its
potential impacts on the United States.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is charged with help-
ing society understand, plan for, and respond to climate variability and change. Find out
more about NOAA's climate activities at: www.climate.gov.
• NOAA's National Climatic Data Center Web site (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html)
helps explore data that demonstrate the effects of climate change on weather, climate,
and the oceans.
• The U.S. Geological Survey's Office of Global Change Web site (www.usgs.gov/global_
change) looks at the relationships between natural processes on the surface of the earth,
ecological systems, and human activities.
-------
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) maintains its own
set of climate change indicators (http://climate.nasa.gov/). Another NASA site
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/pagel.php) discusses the
Earth's energy budget and how it relates to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
• The National Snow and Ice Data Center's Web site (http://nsidc.org/cryosphere) pro-
vides more information about ice and snow and how they influence and are influenced by
climate change.
• The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Web site (www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid= 11939)
explains how climate change affects the oceans and how scientists measure these effects.
• The Pew Center on Global Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org/global'warming'basics)
provides fact sheets on the causes and effects of climate change.
• The World Resources Institute (www.wri.org/climate) has published several publications
about climate change mitigation strategies, particularly their relationship to energy use
and the economy.
For more indicators of environmental condition, visit EPA's Report on the Environment
(www.epa.gov/roe). This resource presents the best available indicators of national condi-
tions and trends in air, water, land, human health, and ecological systems.
-------
Endnotes
Introduction
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary
for Policymakers. In: Climate change 2007:The physical science basis
(Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
The National Academies. 2008. Understanding and responding
to climate change.
3 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary
for Policymakers. In: Climate change 2007:The physical science basis
(Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenhouse Gases
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Inventory
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2008. USEPA
#EPA 430-R- 10-006.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
World Resources Institute. 2009. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
(C A IT). Version 6.0.Accessed January 2009.
ibid.
8 ibid.
9 ibid.
10 EPICA Dome C, Antarctica 647,426 BC to 41 1,548 BC
Siegenthaler, U.,T F Stocker, E. Monnin, D. LiithiJ. Schwander, B. Stauffer,
D. Raynaud.J.M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J.Jouzel.
2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleisto-
cene. Science 3 10(5752): I 3 1 3-1 3 1 7.
Vostok Station, Antarctica 415, 157 BC to 339 BC
Barnola, J.M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical
CO2 record from the Vostok ice core. ln:Trends:A compendium of data
on global change. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy.
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica 9002 BC to 15 15 AD
FliickigerJ., E. Monnin, B. Stauffer, J. Schwander.TF StockerJ. Chappellaz,
D. Raynaud, and J.M. Barnola. 2002. High resolution Holocene N2O ice
core record and its relationship with CH4 and CO2. Global Biogeo-
chem. Cycles 1 6(1): 1 0-1 I.
Law Dome, Antarctica, 7 5 -year smoothed: IOIOAD to 1975 AD
Etheridge, D.M., LP. Steele, R.L Langenfelds, R.J. FranceyJ.M. Barnola,
andVI. Morgan. 1998. Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome
DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. ln:Trends: A compendium of data on
global change. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy.
Siple Station, Antarctica: I744AD to 1953 AD
Neftel.A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lotscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler,
and B. Stauffer. 1994. Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice
core. ln:Trends: A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge,
TN: U.S. Department of Energy,
Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 1 959 AD to 2009 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010.
Annual mean CO2 concentrations for Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Borrow, Alaska: I974AD to 2008 AD
Cape Matatula, American Samoa 1976 AD to 2008 AD
South Pole, Antarctica: 1976 AD to 2008 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009.
Monthly mean CO2 concentrations for Barrow.Alaska, Cape Matatula,
American Samoa, and the South Pole,
Cope Grim, Australia 1992 AD to 2006 AD
Shetland Islands, Scotland: 1993 AD to 2002 AD
Steele, LP, PB. Krummel, and R.L. Langenfelds. 2007. Atmospheric CO2
concentrations (ppmv) derived from flask air samples collected at Cape
Grim, Australia, and Shetland Islands, Scotland. Aspendale,Victoria, Aus-
tralia:Atmospheric, Research, Commonwealth Scientific, and Industrial
Research Organisation,
Lampedusa Island, Italy: 1993 AD to 2000 AD
Chamard, P., L Ciattaglia.A. di Sarra, and F. Monteleone. 2001. Atmo-
spheric CO2 record from flask measurements at Lampedusa Island. In:
Trends:A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge,TN: U.S.
Department of Energy,
EPICA Dome C,Antarctica:646,729 BC to 1888 AD
Spahni, R.,J. Chappellaz.TF. Stocker, L. Loulergue, G. Hausammann, K.
KawamuraJ. FliickigerJ. Schwander, D. Raynaud,V Masson-Delmotte,
and J. Jouzel. 2005. Atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide of the late
Pleistocene from Antarctic ice cores. Science 310(5752): 1317-1321.
Vostok Station, Antarctica: 415,172 BC to 346 BC
Petit,J.R.,J.Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. BarkovJ.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M.
Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte.VM. Kotlyakov,
M. Legrand.V Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M.
Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from theVostok ice core,Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.
GreenlandGISP2 ice core:87,798 BC to 8/87 BC
Byrd Station,Antarctica 85,929 BC to 6748 BC
Greenland GRIP ice core: 46,933 BC to 8/29 BC
Blunier.T, and E.J. Brook. 2001. Timing of millennial-scale climate change
in Antarctica and Greenland during the last glacial period. Science
291:109-1 12.
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: 8945 BC to 1760 AD
FliickigerJ., E. Monnin, B. Stauffer,J. Schwander.TF StockerJ. Chappellaz,
D. Raynaud, and J.M. Barnola. 2002. High resolution Holocene N2O ice
core record and its relationship with CH4 and CO2. Global Biogeo-
chem. Cycles 16(1): 10-1 I.
Law Dome, Antarctica: 1008 AD to 1980 AD
Various Greenland locations: 1075 AD to 1885 AD
Etheridge, DM., L.P Steele, R.J. Francey and R.L. Langenfelds. 2002.
Historical CH4 records since about 1000 AD from ice core data.
ln:Trends:A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge,TN:
U.S. Department of Energy,
Greenland Site J: 1598 AD to 1951 AD
WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases). 2005.
Atmospheric CH4 concentrations for Greenland Site J.
Cope Grim,Australia I984AD to 2008AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009.
Monthly mean CH4 concentrations for Cape Grim,Australia.
Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 1987 AD to 2008 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009.
-------
Monthly mean CH4 concentrations for Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Shetland Islands, Scotland: 1993 AD to 2001 AD
Steele, LR, RB. Krummel, and R.L Langenfelds. 2002. Atmospheric
CH4 concentrations from sites in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research
GASLAB air sampling network (October 2002 version). In:Trends:
A compendium of data on global change. Oak Ridge,TN: U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy,
12 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate
change 2007:The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment Report).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
I 3 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.
Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
14 ibid.
15 ibid.
16 Greenland GISP2 ice core: 104,301 BC to 1871 AD
Taylor Dome, Antarctica: 30,697 BC to 497 BC
Sowers.T, R.B. Alley, and J.Jubenville. 2003. Ice core records of atmo-
spheric N2O covering the last 106,000 years. Science 301 (5635):945-
948.
EPICA Dome C, Antarctica: 9000 BC to / 780 AD
FliickigerJ., E. Monnin, B. Stauffer, J. Schwander.TF. Stacker, J. Chappellaz,
D. Raynaud, and J.M. Barnola. 2002. High resolution Holocene N2O ice
core record and its relationship with CH4 and CO2. Global Biogeo-
chem. Cycles 16(1): 10-1 I.
Antarctica: 1756 AD to I964AD
Machida,T,T Nakazawa,Y Fujii, S. Aoki.and O.Watanabe. 1995. Increase
in the atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration during the last 250
years. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22(21 ):292 1-2924.
Antarctica: 1903 AD to 1976 AD
Battle, M., M. Bender.T Sowers, R Tans, J. Butler,J. Elkins, J. Ellis.T Con-
way, N. Zhang, P. Lang, and A. Clarke. 1996. Atmospheric gas concentra-
tions over the past century measured in air from firn at the South
Pole. Nature 383:23 1-235.
Cope Grim,Australia: 1979 AD to 2008 AD
AGAGE (Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment). 2009.
Monthly mean N2O concentrations for Cape Grim,Australia.
South Pole, Antarctica: 1998 AD to 2009 AD
Barrow, Alaska 1999 AD to 2009 AD
Mauna Loa, Hawaii: 2000 AD to 2009 AD
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010.
Monthly mean N2O concentrations for Barrow.Alaska, Mauna Loa,
Hawaii, and the South Pole,
17 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.
Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
18 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration).2009.
The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index Accessed April 2009.
19 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Climate
change !995:The science of climate change (Second Assessment
Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
20 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate
change 2001:The scientific basis (Third Assessment Report). Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Weather and Climate
I NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2009.
Layers of the atmosphere,
2 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2010.
National Climatic Data Center,
3 ibid.
4 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2009.
National Climatic Data Center,
5 Cheng, S., M. Campbell, Q. Li, L Guilong, H. Auld, N. Day, D. Pengelly S.
Gingrich,]. Klaassen, D. Maclver, N. Comer.Y Mao.W Thompson, and
H. Lin. 2005. Differential and combined impacts of winter and summer
weather and air pollution due to global warming on human mortality
in south-central Canada. Technical Report, Health Policy Research
Program: Project Number 6795-15-2001/440001 I.
6 CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2009. Updated version
of a figure that originally appeared in the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program's 2008 report: Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3: Weather
and climate extremes in a changing climate,
7 CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2008. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3:Weather and climate extremes in a changing
climate.
8 CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2009. Updated version
of a figure that originally appeared in the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program's 2008 report: Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3: Weather
and climate extremes in a changing climate,
9 ibid.
10 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.
Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report).
I I Heim, R.R. 2002. A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in
the United States. Bull.Amer. Meteor. Soc. 83(8): I 149-1 165.
12 National Drought Mitigation Center. 2010. Drought Monitor archives.
Accessed April 2010.
13 National Drought Mitigation Center. 2010. U.S. Drought Monitor.
Accessed April 2010.
14 For example, see Heim, R.R. 2002. A review of twentieth-century
drought indices used in the United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.
83(8): I 149-1 165.
15 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2010.
National Climatic Data Center,
16 ibid.
17 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2009.
National Climatic Data Center,
18 Tebaldi, C., K. Hayhoe, J.M. Arblaster, and G.A. Meehl. 2006. Going to
the extremes:An intercomparison of model-simulated historical and
future changes in extreme events. Climatic Change 79:185-21 I.
19 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2009. U.S.
Climate Extremes Index,
20 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2009.
Standardized Precipitation Index data files. Accessed March 2009.
2 I CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2008. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3:Weather and climate extremes in a changing
climate.
22 ibid.
23 ibid.
24 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration). 2010.
The 2009 North Atlantic hurricane season: A climate perspective.
25 CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2008. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3:Weather and climate extremes in a changing
climate.
26 Emanuel, K.A. 2010 update of data originally published in: Emanuel, K.A.
2007. Environmental factors affecting tropical cyclone power dissipa-
tion. J. of Climate 20(22):5497-5509.
-------
Oceans
I Bindoff, N.L, J.Willebrand,Y Artale.A. Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K.
Hanawa, C. Le Quere, S. Levitus.Y Nojiri, C.K. Shum, LD. Talley, and A.
Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea level.
In: Climate change 2007:The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment
Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
2 Levitus, S.J. Antonov, andT. Boyer. 2005.Warming of the world ocean,
1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32:102604.
3 Domingues, C.M.J.A. Church, N.J.White, P.J. Gleckler, S.E.Wjffels, P.M.
Barker, and J.R. Dunn. 2008. Improved estimates of upper-ocean warm-
ing and multi-decadal sea-level rise. Nature 453:1090-1093.
4 Ishii, M., and M. Kimoto. 2009. Reevaluation of historical ocean heat
content variations with time-varying XBT and MBT depth bias correc-
tions.]. Oceanogr. 65:287-299.
5 Levitus, S.J.I. Antonov,T.R Boyer, R.A. Locarnini, H.E. Garcia, and
A.Y Mishonov. 2009. Global ocean heat content 1955-2008 in light
of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett.
36:L07608.
6 Domingues, C.M.J.A. Church, N.J.White, RJ. Gleckler, S.E.Wjffels, P.M.
Barker, and J.R. Dunn. 2008. Improved estimates of upper-ocean warm-
ing and multi-decadal sea-level rise. Nature 453:1090-1093.
7 Ishii, M., and M. Kimoto. 2009. Reevaluation of historical ocean heat
content variations with time-varying XBT and MBT depth bias correc-
tions.J. Oceanogr. 65:287-299.
8 Levitus, S.J.I. Antonov.TR Boyer, R.A. Locarnini, H.E. Garcia, and
A.Y Mishonov. 2009. Global ocean heat content 1955-2008 in light
of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett.
36:L07608.
9 For example, see Ostrander, G.K., K.M. Armstrong, E.T Knobbe, D
Gerace, and E.R Scully. 2000. Rapid transition in the structure of a coral
reef community:The effects of coral bleaching and physical disturbance.
Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. 97(10):5297-5302.
10 Pratchett, M.S., S.K.WIson, M.L Berumen, and M.I. McCormick. 2004.
Sublethal effects of coral bleaching on an obligate coral feeding but-
terflyfish. Coral Reefs 23(3):352-356.
I I Trenberth, K.E., PDJones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling,A. Klein
Tank, D. Parker, F Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden, and
P Zhai. 2007. Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change.
In: Climate change 2007:The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment
Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
12 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Sea
surface temperature (SST) datasets. National Climatic Data Center.
13 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2008. NASA
global sea surface temperature model,
14 CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisa-
tion). 2009. Sea level rise. Accessed November 2009.
15 University of Colorado at Boulder. 2009. Sea level change: 2009 release
#2.
16 Titus, J.G., E. K.Anderson, D. R. Cahoon, S. Gill, R.E. Thieler, and J.S.
Williams. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise:A focus on the
Mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research,
17 University of Colorado at Boulder. 2009. Sea level change: 2009 release
#2.
18 NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration).2009 up-
date to data originally published in: NOAA. 2001. Sea level variations of
the United States 1854-1999. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS
36.
19 Wootton, J.T, C.A. Pfister, and J.D Forester. 2008. Dynamic patterns and
ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year
dataset. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105(48): 18848-18853.
20 Pacific Science Association. 2009. Task force on ocean acidification.
21 Bindoff, N.LJ.Willebrand,V. Artale.A. Cazenave,J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K.
Hanawa, C. Le Quere, S. Levitus.Y Nojiri, C.K. Shum, LD. Talley, and A.
Unnikrishnan. 2007. Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea level.
In: Climate change 2007:The physical science basis (Fourth Assessment
Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
22 Recreated from Environment Canada. 2008.The pH scale.
23 Yool, A. 2007. Change in sea surface pH. Data from Global Ocean Data
Analysis Project and analyzed using: R. Zeebe "csys" package.
24 Bates, N..A.C. Pequignet, R.J.Johnson, and N. Gruber. 2002. A short-
term sink for atmospheric CO2 in subtropical mode water of the
North Atlantic Ocean. Nature 420:489-493.
25 Gruber, N., C.D. Keeling, N.R. Bates. 2002. Interannual variability in the
North Atlantic Ocean carbon sink. Science 298:2374-2378.
26 DoreJ.E., R. Lukas, DW Sadler, and DM. Karl. 2003. Climate-driven
changes to the atmospheric CO2 sink in the subtropical North Pacific
Ocean. Nature 424:754-757.
27 Gonzalez-Davila, M., J.M. Santana-Casiano, M. Rueda, O. Llinas, and E.
Gonzalez-Davila. 2003. Seasonal and interannual variability of sea-
surface carbon dioxide species at the European Station for Time Series
in the Ocean at the Canary Islands (ESTOC) between 1996 and 2000.
Global Biogeochem. Cy. 17(3): 1076.
Snow and Ice
I UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2007. Global outlook
for ice and snow. Cartographer: Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal.
Map based on the following data sources:
Armstrong, R.L., and M.J. Brodzik. 2005. Northern Hemisphere EASE-
Grid weekly snow cover and sea ice extent version 3. National Snow
and Ice Data Center.
Armstrong, R.L., M.J. Brodzik, K. Knowles, and M. Savoie. 2005. Global
monthly EASE-Grid snow water equivalent climatology. National Snow
and Ice Data Center.
Brown, J., O.J. Ferrians, Jr., J.A. Heginbottom, and E.S. Melnikov. 2001.
Circum-Arctic map of permafrost and ground-ice conditions. National
Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology.
National Geospatial-lntelligence Agency. 2000.Vector map level 0.
StroeveJ., and W Meier. 2005. Sea ice trends and climatologies from
SMMR and SSM/I. National Snow and Ice Data Center,
2 NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). 2009. Archived monthly
sea ice data and images. Accessed November 2009.
3 ibid.
4 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2009. Sea ice yearly
minimum 1979-2007. NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualiza-
tion Studio.
5 Field,WO. !94I.Muir Glacier.Glacier photograph collection. Boulder,
Colorado: National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for
Glaciology.
6 Molnia, B.F. 2004. Muir Glacier. Glacier photograph collection. Boulder,
Colorado: National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for
Glaciology.
7 Dyurgerov, M.B. In press. Reanalysis of glacier changes: From the IGY to
the IPY 1960-2008. Materials of Glaciological Studies.
8 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009.Water resources of Alaska—gla-
cier and snow program, benchmark glaciers. Accessed November 2009.
9 Lemke, P.J. Ren, R.B. Alley, I. Allison, J. Carrasco, G. Flato.Y Fujii, G.
Kaser, P. Mote, R.H. Thomas, and T Zhang. 2007. Observations: Changes
in snow, ice and frozen ground. In: Climate change 2007:The physical
science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
10 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate
change impacts in the United States,
-------
I I ibid.
17 ibid.
12 MagnusonJ.J., DM. Robertson, B.J. Benson, R.H.Wynne, DM. Living-
stone,T Arai, R.A. Assel, R.G. Barry.V Card, E. Kuusisto, N.G. Granin,
TD Prowse, K.M. Stewart, and V.S.Vuglinski. 2000. Historical trends
in lake and river ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere. Science
289:1743-1746. Errata 2001. Science 1291:1254.
I 3 NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center). 2009. Global lake and
river ice phenology.
14 ibid.
15 ibid.
16 Rutgers University Global Snow Lab. 2009. Area of extent data: North
America (no Greenland),
20
Mote, P.W.A.E Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and DP. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining
mountain snowpack in Western North America. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc.
Mote, PW 2009 update to data originally published in: Mote, PW, A.F.
Hamlet, M.P Clark, and DP Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snow-
pack in Western North America. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 86(l):39-49.
Mote, PW.A.F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark, and DP Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining
mountain snowpack in Western North America. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc.86(l):39^t9.
Society and Ecosystems
I CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2009.
CDC WONDER database. Accessed August 2009.
.
2 CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2006. Heat-
related deaths—United States, 1999-2003. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report 55(29):796-798.
3 Weisskopf, M.G., H.A. Anderson, S. Foldy LP Hanrahan, K. Blair,TJ.
Torok, and PD Rumm. 2002. Heat wave morbidity and mortality,
Milwaukee.Wis, 1999 vs. 1995:An improved response! Amer.J. Public
Health 92:830-833.
4 Easterling,WE., PK. Aggarwal, P Batima, K.M. Brander, L Erda, S.M.
Howden.A. KirilenkoJ. Morton, J.-F. SoussanaJ. Schmidhuber, and EN.
Tubiello. 2007. Food, fibre and forest products. In: Climate change 2007:
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Fourth Assessment Report).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
5 Kunkel, K.E. 2009 update to data originally published in: Kunkel, K.E.,
DR. Easterling, K. Hubbard, and K. Redmond. 2004. Temporal variations
in frost-free season in the United States: 1895-2000. Geophys. Res. Lett
3I:L0320I.
6 ibid.
7 ibid.
8 ibid.
9 Arbor Day Foundation. 2006. Differences between 1990 USDA hardi-
ness zones and 2006 arborday.org hardiness zones reflect warmer
climate.
10 ibid.
I I IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.
Climate change 2007: Synthesis report (Fourth Assessment Report).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
12 Schwartz, M.D, R. Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of spring starting ear-
lier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12:343-35 I.
13 Schwartz, M.D. 2009 update to data originally published in: Schwartz,
M.D, R. Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of spring starting earlier across
the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12:343-35 I.
14 Schwartz, M.D. 2009 map provided to accompany update to data origi-
nally published in: Schwartz, M.D, R.Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of
spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 12:343-351.
15 For example, see: Schwartz, M.D, R. Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of
spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 12:343-351.
16 Schwartz, M.D. 2009 update to data originally published in: Schwartz,
M.D, R. Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of spring starting earlier across
the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12:343-35 I.
17 Schwartz, M.D, R. Ahas, and A. Aasa. 2006. Onset of spring starting ear-
lier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12:343-35 I.
18 National Audubon Society. 2009. Northward shifts in the abundance of
North American birds in early winter: A response to warmer winter
temperatures?
19 ibid.
20 ibid.
21 ibid.
22 ibid.
23 ibid.
Conclusion
I IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.
Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007:The physical
science basis (Fourth Assessment Report). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
-------
I
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (6207J)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA430-R-IO-007
April 2010
www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html
Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% postconsumer, process chlorine free recycled paper.
------- |