SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (6446)5/23/2006 4:45:46 PM
From: Rock_nj  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36917
 
Global warming risk 'much higher'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website


Higher temperatures will probably cause trees to release more carbon
Global temperatures will rise further in the future than previous studies have indicated, according to new research from two scientific teams.

They both used historical records to calculate the likely amplification of warming as higher temperatures induce release of CO2 from ecosystems.

They both conclude that current estimates of warming are too low, by anything up to 75%.

Their conclusion is backed up by a new report from the Australian government.

The Australian Greenhouse Office says current estimates of temperature rise are "being challenged" by new research.

Heightened sensitivity

The latest evidence comes in two papers to be published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They challenge the consensus view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global body charged with collating and analysing climate science.

The evidence for a warming Earth is stronger and the impacts of climate change are becoming observable in some cases

Australian Greenhouse Office
It predicts that the global average temperature would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C if human activities were to double the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

That figure, known as the climate sensitivity, results from a combination of two factors:

the direct impact of rising CO2 on the greenhouse effect
various "feedback" mechanisms which amplify the rate of warming, such as changes in the Earth's reflection of sunlight as ice melts
The new research adds a third component, by calculating the likely contribution of carbon dioxide released from natural ecosystems such as soil as temperatures rise.

This would add to the CO2 produced through human activities, raising temperatures still further.

Soil cycle

To calculate this extra warming, both research groups have looked back into the Earth's history.



Animated guide: Climate change
Regularly, spells of relatively high temperatures have produced rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which have fallen again as colder conditions took over.

The theory is that in warm spells, ecosystems such as soils, forests and oceans retain less carbon.

As the Earth's surface is now warming again, the process might be expected to repeat itself, with higher temperatures again causing the biological world to release CO2 into the atmosphere, complementing the gas coming from homes, factories and vehicles.

To calculate the relationship between temperature rise and carbon release, the US study examined a period of about 400,000 years using data from the Vostok ice core of Antarctica.

The European group worked on a much shorter period, looking back to the "Little Ice Age", a period in the middle of the last millennium when the northern hemisphere experienced relatively low temperatures.

"Our group used long time periods, over entire glacial and interglacial cycles, to get this relationship between climate and carbon," explained John Harte from the University of California, Berkeley.

"The European team looked at a much more modern period, and also used a different analytical method," he told the BBC News website.

Several studies looking at climate sensitivity tend to show higher figures than we have been used to

Martin Wild
The European group calculates that temperature rises in the future have been underestimated by between 15% and 78%; the US team expresses its results in a different way, giving a climate sensitivity of between 1.6 and 6.0C.

"We don't get very different answers," observed Professor Harte.

"And using different periods is very helpful, because we know the results are more robust."

Supporting evidence

These are not the only recent studies to suggest that climate sensitivity may have been underestimated.

The Australian Greenhouse Office report cites research showing that some forests which were net absorbers of carbon may be turning into net producers, an effect anticipated as temperatures rise.


Data came from gas bubbles trapped in the Vostok ice core
Martin Wild from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich, a specialist on climate feedback, believes there are other reasons to revisit the current picture.

"The point is that there are several studies coming from several directions looking at climate sensitivity, and they tend to show higher figures than we have been used to," he told the BBC News website.

"There is some evidence on the uptake of heat in the deep ocean, for example, which could make it higher."

On the current carbon studies, he concluded: "If this additional carbon feedback is proven to be realistic, than that would raise the climate sensitivity up by a certain amount."

Future reflections

Both scientific teams admit their work is not as precise as they would like, and that uncertainties remain.

One particular issue is whether the past accurately reflects the future. Do forests and soils behave now, in an era of vast deforestation and widespread fertiliser use, just as they did 100,000 or even 1,000 years ago?

We have, in fact, been conservative on several points

Marten Scheffer
That remains unproven; and climate "sceptics" will undoubtedly seize on this as evidence that the new research is flawed, though they will have to admit that it is substantially grounded in data and not computer models, often the target of their ire.

The researchers counter that they have not found reasons why carbon feedback mechanisms should be different in the future. And even if differences do arise, they say, future feedback could be stronger as easily as it could be weaker.

"We have, in fact, been conservative on several points," said Marten Scheffer from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, leader of the European group.

"For instance, we do not account for the greenhouse effect of methane, which is also known to increase in warm periods."

Currently the IPCC is reviewing its latest major study, the Fourth Assessment Report, which will be released next year.

The first draft, of which BBC News has seen a leaked copy, suggests it has not radically changed its projections for temperature rise since its last report in 2001.

A climate sensitivity of up to 4.5C translates to a maximum likely temperature rise of about 5.8C by the end of this century; whereas in these two studies, the US team calculates up to 7.7C, with the European group's maximum value even higher.

"In view of our findings," observes Marten Scheffer, "estimates of future warming that ignore these [carbon feedback] effects may have to be raised by about 50%."

news.bbc.co.uk

--------------------------------------------

This is what real scientists are saying about global warming, not fossil fuel industry schmucks and shills.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (6446)5/23/2006 5:06:38 PM
From: Rock_nj  Respond to of 36917
 
Why doesn't a suppossedly civicly concerned organization like the "National Center for Policy Analysis" do an analysis demonstrating how many tens of billions of dollars the American taxpayer has spent since the 1950s subsidizing nuclear energy, including the billions spent on Yucca Mountain so the nuclear industry can have a waste depository paid for by the taxpayers not the utilities??? Why don't they tell us what a sham the nuclear industry's claim of making electricity for 2 cents per KWh are, when the real number is closer to 8 cents per KWh when all the subsidies are added in?

You'd think a watchdog like the "National Center for Policy Analysis" would be allo over this scandal, but they are silent. No wonder when you look at who sits on their board of directors, a bunch of trough feeders who benefit from the same sort of government subsidies that have kept nuclear power alive.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (6446)5/24/2006 8:59:11 AM
From: Rock_nj  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36917
 
Here's what the real scientists are saying about global warming, and their forcasts are pretty dire, there is reason to be really concerned. Sea level rises on the order of 50 to 80 feet might occur by early next Century. Where will that put Florida, southern Louisiana and a good portion of New York City? Underwater.

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century
Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

The world's glaciers are shrinking as a result of rising temperatures and will eventually cause sea-levels to swell. Studies have shown that global warming triggers natural feedback loops that can amplify the warming's magnitude. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on.

“The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think,” said Margaret Torn, who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division, and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. She and John Harte, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources, have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming, which appears in the May, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).

In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities.

“If the past is any guide, then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, it will alter earth system processes, resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming,” said Torn.

Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems, and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions, and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences, including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving.

In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte provide an answer to those who have argued that uncertainties in climate change models make it equally possible that future temperature increases could as be smaller or larger than what is feared. This argument has been based on assumptions about the uncertainties in climate prediction.

However, in their GRL paper, Torn and Harte conclude that: “A rigorous investigation of the uncertainties in climate change prediction reveals that there is a higher risk that we will experience more severe, not less severe, climate change than is currently forecast.”

Serious scientific debate about global warming has ended, but the process of refining and improving climate models – called general circulation models or GCMs - is ongoing. Current GCMs project temperature increases at the end of this century based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios due to anthropogenic activities. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, has already climbed from a pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm today, causing a rise in global temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. The expectations are for atmospheric carbon dioxide to soar beyond 550 ppm by 2100 unless major changes in energy supply and demand are implemented.

Concerning as these projection are, they do not take into account additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane released when rising temperatures trigger ecological and chemical responses, such as warmer oceans giving off more carbon dioxide, or warmer soils decomposing faster, liberating ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. The problem has been an inability to quantify the impact of Nature’s responses in the face of overwhelming anthropogenic input. Torn and Harte were able to provide this critical information by examining the paleo data stored in ancient ice cores.

“Paleo data can provide us with an estimate of the greenhouse gas increases that are a natural consequence of global warming,” said Torn. “In the absence of human activity, these greenhouse gas increases are the dominant feedback mechanism.”

In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core, scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. However, the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone. Instead, large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming.

Using deuterium-corrected temperature records for the ice cores, which yield hemispheric rather than local temperature conditions, GCM climate sensitivity, and a mathematical formula for quantifying feedback effects, Torn and Harte calculated the magnitude of the greenhouse gas-temperature feedback on temperature.

“Our results reinforce the fact that every bit of greenhouse gas we put into the atmosphere now is committing us to higher global temperatures in the future and we are already near the highest temperatures of the past 700,000 years,” Torn said. “At this point, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely critical.”

The feedback loop from greenhouse gas concentrations also has a reverse effect, the authors state, in that reduced atmospheric levels can enhance the cooling of global temperatures. This presents at least the possibility of extra rewards if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere could be rolled back, but the challenge is great as Harte explained.

“If we reduce emissions so much that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide actually starts to come down and the global temperature also starts to decrease, then the feedback would work for us and speed the recovery,” Harte said. “However, if we reduce emissions by an amount that greatly reduces the rate at which the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere increases, but don't cut emissions back to the point where the carbon dioxide level actually decreases, then the positive feedback still works against us.”

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Climate Change Research Division and by the National Science Foundation.

sciencedaily.com