The Truth About Global Warming?

The sun for some reason is getting hotter. Much hotter in fact than it was to be expected. Across the globe children today paint a white sun - we were painting yellow suns back in my youth.

According to the New Scientist (will look up article for reference) warming over time enormously increases CO2 in the atmosphere as it has done several times over in previous geological eras. It had likely become a feedback already. The output of this circuit is presently small but may grow rapidly. On this both deniers and Global Warming supporters agree.

Update: here is the reference: http://www.newscientist.com/article/..-rising-temperatures-bring-their-own-cosub2sub.html , just found following Sepp's reply in the discussion about reconsidering Carbon Credit on openmoney.ning.com.

Another point of agreement it seems is that a huge amount already in the atmosphere has been caused by human activity. Where the two party don't agree is what may be the primary cause of runaway CO2 increase. Warming of the sun - as the entire solar system moves onto higher energy plains in our galaxy - or the industrial level output of humans.

My take is that this Warming - however inconvenient - comes at a crucial point. For years, we have ignored that Earth resources have been over consumed. (Check out my other blogs on the subject.) If we don't stop that practice, we will surely keep adding to the warming feedback circuit by the virtue of unmitigated economic growth. And again, this feedback circuit is directly coinciding with major climatic changes in Earth weather system -- a point that both deniers and supporters agree on.

So the truth about Global Warming is that no matter how unpredictable the final outcome may be, that one of the very first steps of intervention should aim at evening out consumption between nations of the opposing ends of the production chain. Out of mutual interest, these nations will likely be willing to agree on similarly mutual CO2 targets. (See my other recent post on forced Population Reduction - the planetary alternative that has a different approach to life altogether.)

Atlantic Carbon Uptake Halved!

Breaking news today: Now this is worrisome to say the least. In the narrow time space of the past 10 years the carbon uptake of the Atlantic ocean has shrunk dramatically. We need to watch this trend very closely. It could signal Purgatory time.

The combined data of some 90 thousand measuring time-points (that is a staggering set of almost 100 thousand separate measurement) shows a disturbing trend. In the past ten years since the 1990s the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that the ENTIRE Atlantic ocean can mop up from the atmosphere has been cut i.

Why is it important? For two reasons at least.

One, the oceans are thought to be the real deal compared to old growth rain forest when it comes to cleaning up the atmosphere. And two, it is not just surface absorption by the huge body of water that helps. It is just as much important that the tiny crustacean organisms living there breath in CO2 and build it in the carbon of their tiny shells. When they die, they sink to the bottom, removing that carbon pretty much forever. And they live by the zillions, so this is a huge amount of carbon we are talking about.

The current measurement is alarming because it shows that a tremendous stress on those organisms could be taking its toll already. Their capacity to breath in CO2 may not have changed, but because of the salinity of the oceans that has increased due to the enormous amount of carbon it now absorbs, the size of shells those tiny creatures can grow is greatly eroded. Saline waters thin those shells. So when they sink in the end, they remove that much less carbon.

The halving of the overall carbon uptake in 10 short years is not a good trend. If it stays just linear then by the end of the next 20 years the uptake will be as little as 12.5% of what would be needed. However, because less uptake means more salinity which then means yet thinner shells, the trend is expected to feed back on itself. Further, yet thinner shells may no longer sink, only drift away and finally wash up. When those shells erode, the carbon is washed back into the waterways, soil and oceans increasing the salinity of all that.

So in case the trend is NOT linear, in just 20 years the uptake could reduce to just 3.125% of its original size. There in that period may actually come a point where shells could become so thin that they no longer sink at all. They would start drifting instead as it is not just the density of shells that matter but also the buoyancy of the water that would now keep them from sinking. Increasing storms would ensure huge braking waves and tornadoes sucking up then spitting the leftover CO2 into the lower atmosphere.

Notice that by this point, OCEANS COULD BE CO2 (or carbon dioxide) contributors. That level of salinity might start locally rotting a lot of surface plants such as sea weeds and such. And so OCEANS COULD BECOME CH4 (or methane) contributors. And that would be a big bad news as methane is much more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. Saline surface waters would also erode the thin shells now drifting and floating aimlessly there.

Weaker and weaker thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic could further exacerbate the trend as heavy and salty cold waters would not be available by then to still help with the sinking of critically thin shells.

By then oceans would no longer be refusing to mop up, but they would be net emitters of massive quantities of CO2 and possibly methane. We need to watch this disturbing trend VERY CLOSELY.

And regardless of what alarming data scientists measure, drastically reduce your personal carbon emission. If but one of us does not do it, the effort of all the rest of us becomes disrespected and soiled. Also mop up carbon individually as much as possible. The picture in 30-40 years is ain't pretty any way you cut it.

But if you don't stop engine when idle, don't walk or bike instead of any form of transport, cremate instead of burials and the list goes on, the picture is not likely to clear up after the PURGATORY of the next decades.

Do we really want to burn alive? Why bring Hell on Earth when it could be the stepping stone to Heaven.

The good thing about changing climate back is that path is now OPEN to ALL OF US. By the People, Of the People, for Mother Earth - All the Peoples Included.

Three headed dog

We knew that changing climate back was long term. But 600 years ? At least that is what the a phenomenon called by CSIRO climate scientist Dr Wenju Cai (marine and atmospheric research) calls the "three headed dog." Avid Planet Ark-ers will have read this already to much of their dismay I am sure.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44719/story.htm

But even if we fix climate and arrest global greenhouse gas emissions (he mentions CO2 but one may also count in methane) the recovery will take longer than our lifetime, much longer. Over half a millennium, according to Cai and his calculations.

What it means that in southeast and southwest Australia their is an unsavory combination of climate elements causing extended drought. The Indian Ocean Dipole, the Southern Annular Mode shifting westerlies southward, and increasingly powerful El Nino events create three interacting prongs.

1. Confluence of a "wet weather" La Nina event in the Pacific and a "dry weather" Indian Ocean Dipole effect in the west, where the dry Indian Ocean weather effect is overwhelming the wet La Nina event. As a result, El Ninos become more frequent and possibly more powerful.

2. Rising temperatures warm the dry Australian landmass faster than the ocean [partly due to much of it's barren surface]. In southwest Western Australia, the drying-out is being intensified by westerly wind jets shifting towards the Antarctic in response to ozone depletion over the last 30 years.

3. Unabated and increasing carbon dioxide emissions. This third prong also intensifies the other two.

Putting it in perspective: If farming will relocate to wetter areas (where-ever they may form) for the next 600 years, would you call that adaptation to climate or an utter change of nomadic proportions?

The questions now on everyone's lips: is that INEVITABLE?

Let's avoid hysteria NOW

Every problem can be turned into a solution. Most with technologies that exist today. Only we need to DECIDE / ACT FAST.

Ok, let's name two problems here to illustrate how this works. One is quite old, but no one so far cared to give it a policy focus with teeth. The other is so new, it seems even the UN have not considered yet.

About the rate of change
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=5690
Hydro-power is methane emitter unless ...
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44533/story.htm


Before listing them in more detail here, one thing needs an early highlight:

Problems - and solutions - come up so fast these days that the bureaucratic never-ending procedures of all kinds of panels, UN blessing, scientists back-forth throwing the ball etc etc needs a bit of speeding up.


Why, you aks? The first problem I list will answer it amply: -
It is not just the change of temperature that matters, but equally, the rate of that change.


Average emperature may only increase a couple of degrees and so is our target for the containment of a potentially harmful increase. As an example, we set a target of say 2 °C increase over a long-term. But that is just the first part of the story even if we reach that target. We also need to set targets for the rate of increase. Too fast a change, and side effects will all but eat up the benefits of contained overall temperature target. Animals may adapt faster. But plants are slow adapters as they cannot move away to favorable climate. They need to replant themselves first. But that very slowness can actually limit the possible rate of change to target.

1. Rate of change limit to sustain ecosystems

A convincing study by Leemans and Eickhout back in 2004 found that forests ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are thus adapted to is limited. The critical limit seems to be 0.4 °C per decade. If the rate should exceed that rate, this relatively old but remarkably important study predicts that all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed. In their wake opportunistic species will start dominating (mostly weeds I assume.) The breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater CO2 emissions. This will in turn increase the rate of warming undoing all the benefits the limited targeted rise would otherwise bring.

Currently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that global average temperature is already increasing by 0.2 °C per decade. That rate cannot rise without consequences and all policy should target a limit change frozen at that rate, lest we will get close to destroying all ecosystems EVEN if we manage to contain the amount of INCREASE.

THE CRITICAL TIME PERIOD IN THIS IS THE NEXT FEW DECADES, as fastest changes could occur around that time.
THE FOCUS IN THIS should be the short-lived greenhouse gases – such as methane and tropospheric ozone – and particles with a warming effect, such as soot (black carbon).

2. Shallow Dams, Hydro-power Plants. New design

After a new focus comes on an old problem comes a brand new problem. It is about methane emissions (much more potent heat trappers than CO2) that shallow dams feeding hydro-powers create.

Now dams are not natural lakes with their own ecosystem braking down methane to CO2. NEW dams cover rotting plants that emit vast amount of methane trapped in water under normal circumstances. But when that water passes through the turbine of a hydro-power plant gas fizzes out like bubbles do when you open a soft drink.

According to Ivan Lima, National Institute for Space Research, Brazil: - Dams worldwide could generate the equivalent of one-fifth of methane from ALL OTHER sources. In particular, brand new tropical shallow dams can be most harmful if they are linked to hydro-power plants.

But new problems, if tackled fast enough can bring up brand new solutions. Let's take the world's shallow dams. They produce MORE methane per unit of power than some fossil-fuel burning options, say many scientists. But what if we trap the methane that fizzes out; - And not only contain it but use it to generate MORE power?

Methane is the main component of natural gas and Lima estimates that in China alone (the most ambitious hydro-power builder by far) around 2.6 million tonnes could be collected from dams for additional power generation, or the equivalent of over seven months of natural gas imports.

All we need is change the design of dams and the way they are linked to hydro-stations to minimize methane emissions on one hand but also to trap the rest for power. The technology exists to do both, Lima says.

It would provide countries with more cheap and clean energy instead of a global warming burden.

So again, it doesn't matter if the problem is new or old, solutions should come FAST so that the result can be MORE CHEAP & CLEAN ENERGY WITH TECHNOLOGIES THAT EXIST TODAY.

In summary
- The target rate of temperature change should be limited, not just the amount of change
- The next few decades will be critical for all ecological systems to survive
- Shallow dams and hydro-power plants urgently need new design

Obama Stumbles - and Stays in Limbo

Presidential candidate and current Illinois senator Barack Obama has to be in two minds about dirty coal. He wants to get rid of it but he also wants to keep it. So now he is in limbo. With a little Bushism, Obama wants to "cleanify" the tainted coal. Via http://www.washingtonpost.com/../AR2007050701771.html

To do justice to the man, he is senator of the state that is already among the biggest dirty coal producers in the US. Not to mention that her yet unmined reserves would offer untold riches in energy production for Illinois. So how could Obama not support the good people of the State that gave Lincoln to the US. Would be unfair, wouldn't it.

The name of the game of course is clean coal, just so long as coal is still part of the plan. So Obama promptly proposes this course of actioan - he and others want call it coal-to-liquids - just as any sensible man in his place would do. He proposes a legislation in the senate to promote turning coal into liquid fuel for vehicles. He figures it is a win-win and who wouldn't.

"Obama wants to cleanify
tainted coal...?"

The problem it seems lay not with the assumption, but with the calculation. You see what it would do is keep dirty coal mining alive and well. And on the top of that a little other thing. That is the reminder of the process, the actual turning coal into liquids and then burning it to get from A to B would produce much more CO2 than the current processes for petroleum based fuel.

Why liquid coal is not the answer: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

Though the proposed amendment has been defeated once in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Obama still has the chance to introduce it again in the Senate. The proposed Act is called the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. And to be true to its intention it would give federal loans for the planning and permitting of such processing plants, federal guarantees for construction loans, and tax credits.

The intention is novel. The problem is once again, a key lawmaker lacking the acumen and discipline of a scientist. Not his fault though.

We now live the time of Governing Certainties. See the consequences of it and the premises here and here. Politicians in government and aspiring for government are Lawmakers or at the very least folks trained in handling adversary, which is what the human nature.

Problem is, Nature is NOT adversarial, it is simply uncertain. It always has been. And very few scientists are actually trained in listening to the rapidly evolving uncertainties of today. I stress uncertainties, not facts or statistics. Even less from the current breed of lawmakers can handle the advice of such scientists in a truly constructive manner.

The Path to Changing Climate Back is Nature's Republic.

Obama still has the chance to do something remotely like that. And if he wants to give a bigger role in solving environmental problems and possible downpours of fortune to his home State - So be it, right ... ? Only it seems if the report by the Natural Resources Defense Council is anything to go by, transport and coal has to be separated, not linked.

So to sum up ...

Obama doesn't run away from responsibility. He just running in the wrong direction.

Sceptic Gets Mired in Controversy

Well known Global Warming sceptic Professor Bob Carter gets a fair hearing and gets into trouble. He got more than flashy soundbites to elaborate on his position. He got himself against a mighty listener: Dr Stephen Schneider. All we ask that Mr Carter should also listen. To himself.

So hear Mr Carter out. In introduction, his position is that putting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the air is like putting coats of white paint on a house. The first quantum (layer) will reflect most of the sunshine and consecutive layers - no matter how many - will not add much more to the reflectivity. Similarly, he says, doubling CO2 is causing most of the warming and consecutive outputs are not that big of a concern.

He supports his argument by saying that warming should be seen on a very long time horizon measured in hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of years. He argues these are processes of geological length. And than he turns around and says, a shining fact to support him is the fact that in the past 3-5 years warming that is more than the background noise warming (we don't know what he means by that and he does not elaborate) has not increased.

Well done Mr Carter. No one needs to argue with you if you defeat your own argument. Twice.

First: How historic long term is 3-5 years? Probably not much.
Second: If most of the warming is caused by the doubling of CO2 and not the consequtive outputs and changes are locked in for 30-40 years already (a consensus reached by scientists of both side of the barrier) than we should worry probably even more about the destructive nature of CO2 and its effects on the whole eco - AND biosphere.

It appears that it was a noble intention on his part to broaden the definition of change - not just weather change. But Mr Carter ran into a formidable opponent in Dr Stephen Schneider. While Mr Carter is certainly an able proponent of possible changes on the geological time-scale (himself being from the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University.)

Professor Schneider is offering advice to help scholars communicate more clearly with the media and policymakers.

Mr Schneider however is a person monitoring really broad interdisciplinary consequences. Mr Schneider being Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, he appeared to be an able advocate of very long term processes including biological ones.


To sum up ...

Allow me just two final figures to contemplate.

If animals or plants go extinct because of too high stress on their respective habitat, what goes with it is what took evolution about 25 million years of perfecting those species to that habitat. A new, drastically different habitat might take similarly long geological time spans to have a new biosphere similarly adopted.

Scientist have reached consensus and agree that ocean surface level rise is mostly due to heat expansion that is about to go on for a thousand to two thousand years.

Both are very long time spans indeed.

So what's the point of arguing consequtive CO2 emissions (that is happening today) if what is already there is so damaging for the very long term, indeed.

Congratulation to Phillip Adams of ABC Radio National LNL for convening such an informative debate and big cheers to story producer Jane Shields.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1913498.htm