New research by U.S. environmental and geo-science academicians shows a distinct warming trend in the nation’s breadbasket over the last two centuries.

The scientists drew that conclusion after examining 65,987 weather records, recording the daily mean temperatures since 1828. Those weather observations, made by doctors in pioneer forts and later Weather Bureau officials, helped Dorian J. Burnette and David Stahle of the University of Arkansas, with the help of geographer Cary Mock of the University of South Carolina, reconstruct the climate of Manhattan, Kansas, in the center of the nation. The scientists’ findings are published in the March 15 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate.

What they found was that 19th century temperatures were notably cooler than those in the 20th Century and the first decade of the 21st Century.

“It still gets cold today, but the trend from 1828 to the present day is unmistakable,” said Dr. Burnette, who holds a degree in environmental dynamics, in a news release. “There is a warming trend in the cold extremes of about 5 degrees Celsius since 1855.”

Burnette said he used daily data from seven historical stations and four modern stations in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, to determine the daily mean temperature for each day dating back to July 1, 1828. He then computed seasonal and annual temperature means for each year, and looked at how these numbers have changed over time.

Calculating the most extreme warm and cold events for each year, Burnette found that the cold extremes are changing relative to the warm extremes, and are “warming at almost twice the rate as the warm extremes,” according to a news release.

The upsurge in warmer temperatures since 1855 tracks with the scientific belief that temperatures have been warming incrementally worldwide in concert with the increase in carbon emissions in the air from burning fossil fuels, a phenomenon of the industrial age.

Dr. Burnette’s data also show an accelerated warming trend since 1969, again fueled by a rise in cold season temperature extremes.

This is consistent with what we see globally on average,” Dr. Burnette said.

Burnette also studied records from the U.S. Army Surgeon General, the Smithsonian Institution and the Signal Service housed in the National Archives in his quest to find the detailed weather information from these early observers. In interpreting the data, the team developed a computer program that could help check readings against others in the region, to make sure that inaccurate data was excluded or to interpret weather vernacular that was used in the 19th century.

OK, I admit, I didn’t want to wade into this slush.

I was aware, as most of you no doubt are, that the IPCC (that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been caught in a few mistakes recently. And I was concerned, because we reporters rely on the IPCC’s reports — especially that last one from 2007. The one that many scientists believe underestimates what will happen with climate change.  We rely on it because it’s based on the efforts of hundreds of peer-reviewed reports by scientists around the world and it’s widely considered to be the best forecast we have of what climate change might bring.

Of course, I had trouble hearing myself think in the din of cheers from climate skeptics, who were already reveling in record snows in the U.S. (The naysayers conveniently ignore that extreme weather patterns are predicted by global-warming models.) They shout from the stands, as though this were a junior high wrestling match instead of a serious discussion of what’s true or not, or reasonable to believe, about the future of the planet.

I mean, a little gravitas would have been nice.

We did get a serious response from chief climate skeptic U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, (around the same time his family was building an igloo to taunt Al Gore).

Inhofe on the Senate floor: “The ramifications of the IPCC [problems] spread far and wide, most notably to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gases from mobile sources endanger public health and welfare.  EPA’s finding rests in large measure on the IPCC’s conclusions-and EPA has accepted them wholesale, without an independent assessment.”

His criticism seems fair, actually. If the EPA were relying just on the IPCC for its conclusions that greenhouse gases are dangerous, then we’ve got a problem.

Except it isn’t. The agency does turn frequently to the IPCC report, because it’s the big compendium on the topic, composed by a worldwide network of top scientists, who aren’t all of one mind, who are fallible, yes, but have been working for decades to put various pieces together. The IPCC experts are studying everything from the bleaching coral in the acidifying Pacific to the speed of glaciers breaking off in Greenland.

The EPA’s State of the Knowledge report to the public indeed leans heavily on IPCC findings. But its discussion of the Health and Environmental Effects of Climate Change points to our own U.S. agencies that monitor the weather and the nation’s natural resources. Much of this info is gathered together by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. (Which is worth checking out if you want to know more. You’ll be reassured that scientists and policymakers are trying to tease out what’s true, what’s likely and what’s less likely to transpire with climate change.)

As my teenagers would say, the EPA staff are not idiots, they know they need multiple sources.

But back to the IPCC. Without rehashing everything that’s gone on, it is clear that mistakes have been made.

Here’s a look at one of them: In its 2007 report the IPCC says the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. The IPCC drew that information from a World Wildlife Fund report, which had relied on another report — that had inaccurately cited yet another report, which was in hieroglyphics.

I’m kidding about the hieroglyphics. The reports don’t go back quite that far.

The bottom line: You could barely follow the chain of custody here, let alone find the solid science calculating that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. It was, in the end, speculation. And more than a few someones were lazy in vetting this information at WWF and the IPCC. (Read the WWF’s explanation for more detail.)

So what is the truth? According to one peer-reviewed report, the  Himalayan glaciers are losing mass, which could be very bad for the half billion people who depend on them for water.

And this is most likely (some would say almost certainly) caused by climate change, and also possibly soot from little cooking stoves used in that part of the world.

The climate change, by the way, is most likely caused by human-created carbon emissions.

At what point does this science become fact? When the weight of the science shows — even despite some missteps, a few jealous colleagues withholding evidence, occasional hyperbole and a few related bugs and warts — that climate change is happening.

I was convinced awhile back. I think the IPCC’s failings are worrisome. But I understand that science is a process — steered by humans. At some point, we need to jump, and run with the solutions. While we can.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

When the Copenhagen Climate Conference ended in mid-December, it was widely decried by climate activists as embarrassingly inconclusive, at best, and a failure at worst (you can’t get much worse than that).

And yet, there were plenty of voices, including that of President Obama, urging everyone to hold tight and pointing out that alliances had been formed and the world’s major polluters had stepped up, however tentatively. They had issued hard numbers, a percentages by which they would try to rollback greenhouse gas emissions.

And that’s what it’s all about, reeling in those emissions. So despite the chaos, the under-achieving, the low-ball aspirations, the feinting and ducking, the world’s leading nations, including previously absent U.S., stepped up to the plate. You could say they hit a series of ground balls, but at least they took the bat.

These nations were asked to officially record their promises by signing the Copenhagen Accord by the end of January. This follow-up event was anti-climatic and received less media attention.

But the end result was that the emissions targets were documented and recorded for posterity — and hopefully for prosperity. (That’s what everyone seems to forget, that we need to forgo the pollution so we and future generations can live long and prosper, not so we can have higher electric bills.)

NRDC International Climate Policy Director, Jake Schmidt

Anyway. This week, in his blog, Jake Schmidt, director of the NRDC’s International Climate Policy, writes that 60 countries have firmed up their pledges in the final document; including the top 12 carbon-emitting nations.

Schmidt and the NRDC have put together a table of these commitments to emphasize that world leaders are somewhat  (actually literally) on a page.

“These countries are the “big players” which almost single-handedly hold the key to solving global warming.  The steps they take are critical.  So let me repeat: countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have just committed to steps to reduce their global warming pollution. As I’ve discussed here, this is a huge shift from where we were just 2 years ago (and even 6 months ago).  That is something to build upon since the key to solving global warming is whether or not key countries are committing to take action.”

But Schmidt knows that “commitments” and “action” can wave at each other over a large chasm. He says environmentalists must just get out there and start proving that reducing GHGs can create jobs and won’t wreck the economy.

Then we’ll see our government follow along.

(Stay tuned for more hopeful musings by another blogger, who says that this leadership by the public is already happening — especially in the business sector.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

The David Suzuki Foundation, a well-regarded Canadian environmental organization, has awarded the Vancouver Olympic Games a “bronze” award for environmental progress.

Canadian skier Kelly Vanderbeek, speed skater Ingrid Liepa and David Suzuki at the presentation of a bronze medal to the Vancouver Olympic organizers.

Despite the hype that these are the greenest Olympics ever – and they may be – the  Davud Suzuki Foundation believes the Vancouver Games could have done more.

In its climate scorecard, the foundation applauded the Vancouver Olympics for doing several things right, such as setting clear goals on energy efficiency and renewable energy; being transparent to promote accountability; making improvements over previous Olympics in measuring climate impact; leaving a legacy of energy-efficient arenas and buildings; using primarily clean energy; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent.

Areas that need improvement, according to the foundation, include local transportation and shipping that could have had more lasting reductions in their emissions, and carbon offsets, which should have been higher (118,000 tons were offset but this represents less than half of all emissions).

In addition, Vancouver organizers should have been more vigilant in engaging the public and inspiring people with solutions to climate change. The report notes that despite the opportunity to reach out to billions, Vancouver’s Olympics are having little impact in providing much-needed inspiration to fix global warming.

“Climate change is a defining issue of our time, and the winter Olympics are an opportunity to show leadership by reaching and inspiring billions of fans and spectators with solutions to global warming,” noted the foundation’s Paul Lingl. “Despite some missed opportunities, the positive steps taken by the 2010 Olympics demonstrate that climate solutions are doable, affordable and can have a lasting legacy.”

Many of the athletes agree. Former Olympic speed skater Ingrid Liepa said, “The winter Olympics depend on snow and ice… It’s encouraging to see that the Vancouver Olympics are making a contribution, and I hope that future Olympic Games will raise the bar even higher for the sake of our winter sports culture – and our planet.”

Canadian Alpine Ski Team member Kelly VanderBeek added, “As a winter Olympian I see global warming firsthand: melting glaciers, changing snow patterns and the closing of lower-elevation hills. Winter sports are threatened by global warming and Canadian Olympic athletes are stepping forward and calling for action.”

Both athletes are members of Play It Cool, which is a collaboration between the Suzuki Foundation and the Climate Project of Canada. Liepa and VanderBeek have joined forces with more than 70 Canadian athletes who have called upon the Vancouver Olympics to address the games’ climate impact.

Canadian skier Jennifer Heil, who just took silver in the 2010 women’s moguls competition, also is a member of Play It Cool.  “ I have now traveled for 8 years on the World Cup Ski Circuit and I have witnessed first hand extreme recession of glaciers in Europe and at home in Canada where I train during the summer months.” she says on the website. “I can’t imagine a winter in Canada without skiing, the sport I love. But scientists say that this could be a reality if we don’t take action today.”

The connections are clear. “The fate of winter sports, and the potential to host winter Olympics in the future,” says Foundation founder David Suzuki, “depend on choices we make today to address climate change.”

Earlier the foundation had prepared a discussion paper for the Vancouver Olympic organizers, to show how the games could reduce their carbon imprint, how the Olympic committee could buy offsets for air travel and other carbon-emitting activities, and why the winter sports event should the public on climate change.

It noted that ski venues are already being affected by climate change, with mountain glaciers are shrinking three times faster than in the 1980s and Switzerland’s glaciers losing one-fifth of their surface in the last 15 years.

“It is expected that snow-making costs will increase considerably as temperatures warm and even artificial snow will not be viable if temperatures rise above a certain threshold.”

For more information on how climate change threatens winter sports see Suzuki’s report On Thin Ice, Winter Sports and Climate Change.

See also Green Right Now’s Global warming threatens ski industry with meltdown.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Photo: NOAA.gov

Who says the federal government isn’t moving in response to climate change? A proposed new service is designed to help businesses adapt to global warming and to encourage development of new technologies to cope with it.

“Even with our best efforts, we know that some degree of climate change is inevitable and American citizens and businesses, and American governments … must be able to rise to environmental and economic challenges that lie ahead,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says.

NOAA Climate Services requires a reorganization at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Commerce Department and includes the National Weather Service. Locke said new private second industries could develop from information generated by the service, just as industries based on data from the National Weather Service and U.S. Census Bureau have done.

“In the process, we’ll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.”

Concentrating NOAA’s expertise and information on climate change in one place would help these industries and others, including renewable energy like wind power, infrastructure and architecture planning and disease prevention and control. The service would help plan for sea level rise, coastal erosion, longer growing seasons, increases in heavy downpours and other severe weather events.

Congress must approve the transfer of funds to the new service. Locke said he hoped it would be operating by the start of the 2011 fiscal year.

Copyright © 2010 | Distributed by GRN Network

Ski resorts face tough choices and an uncertain future. (Photo: Bill Sullivan)

Anyone who has ever traveled to a big-time ski resort knows that conquering the mountain is a daunting task – and an expensive one, too.

For the 2009-10 season, a one-day lift ticket at Vail (Colorado) is $97 for an adult. Over at Aspen/Snowmass, a two-day advance purchase pass will set you back $191.

Of course, that’s just the beginning. If you’re a flatlander or a relative novice, you’ll probably have to rent equipment. (Plan on $40 a day and up.) If you’ve never skied at all, you’ll want to get a few pointers before climbing onto that lift: At Vail, a one day beginner lesson at Golden Peak Ski and Snowboard School is $165.

Planning to stay close to the slopes? The Vail Plaza Hotel & Club can keep you near all the action. For a mid-March visit, a standard room with two queen beds runs about $539 a night. If you’re bringing a crowd, a three-bedroom condo averages $2,475 each evening you put head to pillow.

Yes, there are less tony accommodations at not quite so chic locales, and rates vary by time of season (Christmas and Spring Break are the most expensive bookings), but you get the point. The ski trade is Big Business backed by even Bigger Businesses, and enormous investments are subject to conditions that can change… like the weather.

But what happens when the weather itself actually changes? Global warming is a concept that sends chills down the spine of owners and operators at otherwise remote outposts in Colorado, Utah and California, not to mention Canada and Europe.  A steady snowfall from before Thanksgiving through early April is essential to keeping companies afloat and locals gainfully employed.

Those good times and big payoffs are threatened as the Earth heats up.

“People in the industry are definitely paying attention,” says Mark Williams, University of Colorado geography professor and a fellow at CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. “A small change of climate that changes snow to rain changes the industry.

“They’re quite aware of what could potentially happen with climate change.”

A little over a year ago, Williams and Brian Lazar of Stratus Consulting Inc. of Boulder released a study that combined temperature and precipitation data with general climate circulation models, focusing on Aspen Mountain in Colorado and Park City Mountain in Utah, resorts who combined to sponsor the research.

The study produced some startling conclusions:

• Snowlines (elevations below which seasonal snowpack doesn’t develop) will move up more than 2,400 feet at the two ski areas by 2100.
• Using a “business as usual” scenario and assuming that the future rate of CO2 increase will be similar to the current rate, the model projects that average temperatures will rise by four degrees Fahrenheit at the two resorts by 2030 and by 8.6 degrees in Aspen and 10.4 degrees in Park City by the dawn of the next century.
• By 2030, ski seasons will be squeezed on each end, with snow falling later and melting earlier.
• Many ski areas in California’s Sierra Nevada, the Cascades in Oregon and Washington, and Eastern areas in Pennsylvania and West Virginia could be forced to close in the coming decades due to warmer conditions.

Nile Delta. Photo: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC

Half a million inhabitants displaced. About 70,000 jobs lost. A major source of both food and revenue drowned by salt water.

That’s the grim forecast for Egypt’s Nile Delta, as rising seawaters threaten the nation’s legendary  food-producing region.

Over the last century, the Mediterranean Sea has risen about six inches, according to a recent government study. The introduction of so much salt water already has forced some farmers off their land, while others struggle to find ways to protect their homes and livelihoods.

As industrialized nations wrestle with how to handle their impact on the environment, Egypt may be left to deal with the mistakes of others.

“Egypt is only responsible for 0.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions,” Mohammed al-Raey of the Regional Disaster Response Centre told the AFP news agency. “There is no doubt that (climate change) poses a threat to food security and a threat to social systems.”

Currently, the Nile Delta provides around a third of the crops for Egypt’s population of 80 million. Excess yields are exported, an important source of revenue.

While some farmers have simply given up, others of greater means attempt to adapt by covering their land with beds of sand to isolate it against seawater infiltrations. Engineering firms specializing in underwater projects are experimenting with more permanent fixes.

Hamza Associates has proposed to build a waterproof wall that would effectively separate the sea from the land and raise the shore by six feet. The project has been on the drawing board since 2007. Opponents argue that a wall would negatively impact Egypt’s Mediterranean beach resorts, crippling the lucrative tourist trade.

(Photo: Noofangle Media)

Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe. This intensification of weather and climate extremes will be the most visible impact of global warming in our everyday lives. Here are 13 ways you’ll experience climate change, according to the National Wildlife Federation:

1. In the northern United States, winter is becoming milder and shorter on average.
2. Spring arrives 10 to 14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.
3. Most snowbelt areas are still experiencing extremely heavy snowstorms. Some places are even expected to have more heavy snowfall events as storm tracks shift northward and as reduced ice cover on the Great Lakes increases lake-effect snowfalls.
4. Over the next century, we will have more extremely hot summer days.
5. Every part of the country will feel the increased heat.
6. Urban areas will feel the heat more acutely because asphalt, concrete and other structures absorb and reradiate heat, causing temperature to be as much as 10°F higher than nearby rural areas.
7. Global warming is shifting precipitation patterns and also increasing evaporation rates. These trends will create persistently drier conditions in some places, including the American Southwest.
8. There will be longer and drier droughts that will have major consequences for water supply, agriculture and wildlife.
9. In the American West, wildfire frequency, severity and damages are increasing because of rising temperatures, drying conditions and more lightning brought by global warming, combined with decades of fire suppression that allowed unsafe fuel loads to accumulate, a severe bark beetle infestation that is rapidly decimating trees and ever expanding human settlements in and near forests.
10. Warmer air can hold more moisture, so more and heavier precipitation is expected in the years to come.
11. Shifts in snowfall patterns, the onset of spring and river-ice melting may all exacerbate some flooding risks.
12. The latest science indicates that maximum hurricane wind speed will increase 2 to 13 percent and rainfall rates will increase 10 to 31 percent over this century.
13. Sea-level rise will cause bigger storm surges and further erode the natural defenses provided by coastal wetlands that buffer storm impacts.

Environmentalism is getting an injection of fun, but with a serious aim.

Today, some of the nation’s best-known and critically acclaimed celebrities, Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, Jason Bateman, Felicity Huffman and Forest Whitaker, along with rising stars Chace Crawford, Emmy Rossum and Justin Long, are leading a campaign to help citizens sound the call for clean energy in Washington.

(Noted professor Cornell West also makes a cameo appearance in the video, impishly declaring “Tweet this!)

The program, launched today by these actors and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is called  This is Our Moment. It’s main thrust: To help people contact their senators, even flood their email boxes, make videos and generally get viral in pushing for an American clean energy bill.

Those who want to register their support for clean energy action can use social networking tools at the website to spread the message. Fans of the movement will be able to embed a video player on their Facebook page or blog, and more. (Tweet this! says West.)

This is Our Moment supports legislation to shift the nation’s energy production from fossil-fuel based power sources to non-polluting, renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

The viral campaign was timed to begin after President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he called for passage of a clean energy bill. The U.S. House passed such a measure in 2009, but the legislation, called the Clean Energy, Jobs and American Power Act, has been stalled in the Senate.

Advocates say that passage of the bill would create local jobs, free the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil and greatly reduce carbon emissions, which scientists warn are fueling accelerating climate change.

“This is our moment – our moment to fight for a cleaner and more secure future,” said DiCaprio, a longtime environmentalist and an NRDC Trustee, in a news release. “The time is now for people across the country to stand up and have their voices heard. We all must call on the Senate to act on this historic opportunity.”

Those opposed to a clean energy and climate action bill in the Senate have raised questions about the accuracy of the science of climate change. They’ve also called for the nation to pursue all energy sources, an approach opposed by environmentalists who want less of the nation’s energy to come from the burning of fossil fuels. Gasoline engines and coal-fired power plants generate the majority of carbon emissions in the U.S. and in countries around the world.

In his State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress to pass clean energy legislation so that the U.S. can remain a world manufacturing leader.

China, as well as India and most European nations, are adding wind and solar capacity, creating a large world market for clean energy technology expertise and goods.

Major U.S. firms, such as General Electric among others, make components for wind turbines. Several Silicon Valley companies are developing cheaper and more efficient solar tools, both for large industrial and home installations.

Like what you see on YouTube? Here’s the longer version by the “This is Our Moment” celebs:

Said NRDC President Frances Beinecke: “This is one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time – we cannot let our moment pass us by. Our Senators need to hear all of us loud and clear.”

Photo: Bill Sullivan

A pair of research teams operating independently has come to the same conclusion: The Southwest portion of the United States, which has experienced rapid population growth, may become even more arid as global temperatures continue to rise.

That prediction is based on a study of seasonal rainfall variations between 56,000 and 11,000 years ago as recorded in cave stalagmites. Geoscientist Stephen Burns of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and colleagues at the University of New Mexico published their findings in Nature Geoscience, which also featured a second study that offered similar results.

According to Burns, data from his group’s study supports modern evidence that the polar jet stream shifts to the north in response to climate warming. When the polar jet stream retreats, winter precipitation in the Southwest decreases.

“Likewise, in periods when the Northern hemisphere’s climate is cooler, the polar jet stream sinks southward and winter rains increase in the desert Southwest, probably in response to advancing glaciers in Northern latitudes,” Burns says.

Only a few research teams have used isotope analysis from calcite sampled from ancient speleothems to analyze long-term patterns, but the new method is believed to be more precise than previous studies of lake bed sediment records. Any doubts about reproducibility were eliminated when another team (without prearrangement) reported similar conclusions in the same journal from tests run in a different cave.

“Results from our two groups reproduce each other incredibly well, which is a quite exciting and satisfying validation of the overall method,” Burns said.

Image Credit: NASA/GISS

If 2009 left you a little hot under the collar, there was more to that feeling than job losses, bankruptcies and foreclosures.

Turns out it actually was pretty hot out there.

According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2009 tied for the second-warmest year on record, trailing only 2005. In the southern hemisphere, ‘09 was the warmest year since the inception of record-keeping in 1880.

The NASA report confirmed predictions made in a study issued by the World Meteorological Association late last year.

In all, 2009 finished tied with five other years (four from the 2000s) for the second-warmest year ever. With so many of the hottest years in that decade, the period between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 became the warmest on record.

“The (yearly) ranking often misses the point,” Dr. James Hansen, GISS director, said in a press release. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated.”

The polar bear is the high-profile furry face of animals threatened by climate change. With Arctic ice melting at an increasing pace — due to global warming — its range and habitat is disappearing.

But, the polar bear is just one of many species endangered by a warming planet and other man-made threats. Beyond the tragedy of extinction of a species is the chain reaction in the environment triggered by that loss.

That complex web of life that connects people, animals, plants and places is known as biodiversity, and is the underpinning of life on Earth. To raise awareness of its importance to the planet, the United Nations has declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity.

Courtesy IUCN / Staghorn coral thicket © L De Vantier

The IUCN – the International Union for Conservation of Nature – is a key group  trying to drive that message home. The IUCN is the oldest and largest environmental group in the world. As part of their mission they maintain the Red List, which tracks the status of thousands of species and subspecies.

Their most recent update of that list finds that of the more than 47,000 species studied, 17,291 are threatened with extinction.

To bring more attention to other animals on that long list, the IUCN has released a report on 10 creatures whose future is threatened.

Like the polar bear, many of these 10 are familiar – and lovable – faces. Others may lack cute faces, but are of equal importance in the global circle of life.

The report, Species and Climate Change: More than Just the Polar Bear takes a close look at ringed seals, leatherback turtles, emperor penguins, koalas, staghorn corals, clownfish, Arctic foxes, salmon, quiver trees and beluga whales.

1) Staghorn coral

These coral (pictured above)  make up about 1/5 of the Earth’s reefs, and those reefs are essential to the survival of a rainbow of fish and other aquatic life. People, too, rely on that marine life for food. Coral reefs protect coastlines from erosion, provide cover for fish and keep eco-tourists snorkeling and scuba diving.

The threats: bleaching, acid erosion and weakened health.

Rising ocean temperatures cause coral to lose the algae it requires for life, and to prevent disease. Bleaching occurs when the coral become nutrient deprived and unable to protect themselves from solar radiation. Warmer and more acidic waters, both caused by global warming triggered by increased carbon dioxide in the air,  make coral more susceptible to bleaching, because they live within a narrow temperature band. Bleached coral  becomes white and dies. Today, about 20 percent of the world’s coral reefs are damaged.

Some coral may be able to adapt to warmer water, but that process is slower than the rate the temperature is rising, the report says.