Analyzing Climate Change On Carbon Rich Peat Bogs 163
eldavojohn writes "A new report (PDF) from Climate Central shows that climate change has been affecting some states more than others for the past 100 years. As you can see from a video released by NASA, things have become most problematic since the 70s. Among the states most affected is Minnesota, where moose populations are estimated to have dropped 50% in the past six years. Now the U.S. Department of Energy is spending $50 million on a massive project at the Marcell Experimental Forest to build controlled sections of 36 feet wide and 32 feet tall transparent chambers over peatland ecosystems. Although peat bogs only account for 3% of Earth's surface, they contain over 30% of carbon stored in soil. They aim to manipulate these enclosures to see the effects of warming up to 15 degrees, searching for a tipping point and also observing what new ecosystems might arise. The project hopes to draw attention and analysis from hundreds of scientists and researchers around the globe."
Biodome's don't work (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Like they need another alarmist plot point (Score:5, Informative)
Atmospheric CO2 partial pressure is at an all time high (post industrial revolution) for as far back as we can measure.
You contradict yourself - first you say that deep ice core data shows that temperature rises and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are linked, then you claim that "no one has proven ... if they just happen to appear together". I'll save you the trouble - the former is the accurate statement, although it's not exclusive to CO2; any molecule that absorbs IR in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, which makes the biggest culprits CO2 and water vapour. There are many others that are considerably worse than CO2 (hundreds, sometimes thousands of times more potent as IR absorbers) that are mitigated by low concentrations.
It's very easy to demonstrate with a simple science experiment that you can do yourself at home with a plastic bottle, a thermometer, a stopwatch and a lamp. Seal the bottle then point the lamp at it and leave it for 10 minutes. Measure the temperature inside after this time has elapsed. Now open the bottle and breathe in and out, sealing your mouth around the neck for as long as you can manage it (until all the oxygen is gone) - ie, vastly increase the concentration of CO2 and water vapour inside the bottle. Seal it up and then wait for the temperature inside to fall to the same level as the air was in the first experiment (your breath will obviously be warm, so you want to start from the same air temperature). When it's back to the same level turn the lamp on and wait another 10 minutes and record the temperature. Record your results.
The chemistry of IR absorbing gasses is not controversial. It only seems to be when it's politically inconvenient. Suddenly the idea that CO2 absorbs IR radiation just because it's in the earth's atmosphere rather than in a lab setting is "merely anecdotal".
Most radiation that falls on the earth *is* reflected (our albedo is quite high), and even then, much of the re-radiated IR from the earth's surface is also lost to space - this is not new or controversial information.
"We need to understand climates change and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it" is probably the most hilariously inaccurate and naive statement I think I've ever read on slashdot. Not only is it one of the most ridiculous "head in the sand" conclusions drawn from a fundamental misunderstanding of basic science (if the first part of the comment is anything to go by), but it's contradicted by extensive evidence to the contrary by a number of widely famous examples. The most obvious of these would be the depletion (and subsequent re-establishment) of the ozone layer and the corresponding changes to the climate that were observed and reversed in response to human actions.
If all the people on earth disappeared the climate would indeed continue to change in response to events that occur - the only difference is that there would be no further changes from anthropogenic factors. The fact that it responds to natural changes does not mean that humans have no effect on it. Again, you seem to misunderstand the way that the climate works.
Re:Somewhat welcome news (Score:4, Informative)
The climate models in use thirty years ago when I was at school told us that by now, up here around 56 degrees north we'd be buried under a mile of ice, and that equatorial Africa would have a climate similar to Central Europe.
Please provide a link to the model in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the 1980s predicting a mile of ice covering land masses at 56 degrees north.
The climate models in use twenty years ago when I was at university told us that by now, the Earth would be fried by intense UV because of the complete unstoppable destruction of the ozone layer, with arid deserts reaching from the Sahara to as far north as Denmark - where it wasn't all submerged under water from the melting icecaps.
Please provide a link to the models in question, as well as a peer reviewed paper from the early 1990s making those predictions.
The climate models in use ten years ago when I worked on data visualisation for - among other things - weather modelling told us that by now, we'd be experiencing unprecedented storms, hurricane-force winds all year round, and bitterly cold winters and blistering hot summers that kill off all the arable crops.
Please provide a link to the models and peer reviewed papers from 2002 which make those predictions.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't entirely believe the climate predictions we hear today.
You'll have to forgive me if I think that you are intellectually dishonest and fraudulent - given:
1. In the 1980s to prevalent view on global warming was the same as it is now, and models from the 1980s accurately predict the warming we've seen since.
2. *I* was in university (studying science) in the early 1990s and the prevalent view of global warming at the time was exactly as it is now. In the early 90s the hole in the ozone layer had been known for 20 years, and satellites accurately mapped it's extent and growth - and the effects of UV were well known and not exaggerated.
3. In 2002 the prevailing view on climate was exactly as it is now, and no predictions were made in 2002 abotu what would be happening in 2012, apart from what we have subsequently observed
Re:Somewhat welcome news (Score:3, Informative)
If anything, it has been slowing down over the last decade as global temperatures have stabilized, the net icepack (NH and SH) combined has actually grown, and even the NH ice coverage is within a fingernail's width of the thirty year mean.
People seem to be confusing the order in which science is done. Observations trump theory. When the theory is an elaborate one with many adjustable, essentially unknown parameters and little objective predictive skill, choosing to believe observational evidence instead of theoretical projection is sheer common sense. When (no matter what) the sea level isn't going to suddenly jump ten centimeters in a decade (where at most 1-2 cm is a lot more likely) spending massive amounts of money now to ameliorate what may never emerge as a problem later is again sheer common sense. In the meantime, the measured bond albedo of the Earth has increased by 7% over the last fifteen years, which corresponds to a roughly 2 C temperature drop due to reduced net insolation "off the top" as it were. This dwarfs the entire warming observed since the LIA. Just something to think about.
rgb (sitting on the NC coast, looking out the window at the water in Beaufort NC, where the tidal levels haven't significantly changed for years).
Re:Somewhat welcome news (Score:5, Informative)
and even the NH ice coverage is within a fingernail's width of the thirty year mean.
Wrong. [noaa.gov]
When (no matter what) the sea level isn't going to suddenly jump ten centimeters in a decade (where at most 1-2 cm is a lot more likely)
Strawman [wikipedia.org]
the measured bond albedo of the Earth has increased by 7% over the last fifteen years,
Mistaking cycles for linear trends [njit.edu]
which corresponds to a roughly 2 C temperature drop due to reduced net insolation "off the top" as it were.
Total lack of data for that statement. I'm willing to check out any support you have, but just as a warning, a 2 C change due to change in bond albedo is basically impossible just based on the temperature data we have.
looking out the window at the water in Beaufort NC, where the tidal levels haven't significantly changed for years).
Yes, because eye-balling a waterline trumps actual measurements taken over the course of decades, and where significant seems to mean something completely different to you than to oceanographers - or anyone working with oceans.
Yes, you've indeed admirably proven your position with sources that are peer-reviewed, based on multiple and independent data sets, and you have demonstrated a strong understanding of basic physics, scientific principles and research methodology. /sarcasm
Re:Somewhat welcome news (Score:4, Informative)
At least you're starting to show your work. Your entire first paragraph, until the last sentence, is actually correct. Two issues still: the 7% increase in albedo is not a unanimous fact. See here for quite a few papers discussing the evolution of albedo, the accuracy of the Earthlight project, etc: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/papers-on-the-albedo-of-the-earth/ [wordpress.com]. Secondly, the calculation has been met with great skepticism, precisely because the 2C drop in temperature hasn't been observed. This means that changes in albedo have a very limited impact on the global temperature. Finally, Grey-body calculations are fine, but they are far more complex than you let on. For one, what's the impact of dealing with irradition onto a sphere, instead of onto an ideal black-body cavity with an albedo factor applied to it? Hint: it involves integration.
You're still completely lacking in citations. Here, let me help you a bit with a paper actually discussing the impact of bond albedo and solar cycles on future insolation: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/download/14754/10140 [ccsenet.org] They don't discuss the
As for the other assertions, obviously we look at different graphs for sea ice -- the SH is over the 30 year mean and has been for a rather long time.
Sea ice is a rather minor aspect of the ice in the SH, as well as utterly uninteresting when it comes to rising sea levels. Furthermore, you are conflating ice area and ice volume. See here for some very accurate measurements that indicate that ice volume is decreasing: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php [eurekalert.org] Now that you're 0 for 2, you want to try again?
If you google a bit, you can actually see the variation year by year over the last decade or more, all on one graph.
Yes, it's well known. It's the one I linked. I'm glad you don't even read the replies. It's a great way to stay ignorant and look like a fool.
Oh, and while you're worrying about explaining how you can tell what is a linear trend and what is cyclic in the absence of any sort of serious baseline for data or workable theory,
Ok, now I KNOW that you didn't read anything I linked to. Want to retry that AFTER looking at the graph in my reply? Or are you talking about the slight uptick that came from the Earthlight project, and that no one was able to replicate in their DIRECT measurements of albedo?
But either way the physics of both is perfectly clear, and any halfway decent climate model that includes the measured albedo as a parameter should be showing strong cooling.
The models do include measured albedo, you meandering, cherry-picking, misleading nimrod, and neither the data, nor the models indicate much cooling. Merely a bit of a pause after a record high in 1998, with a slight upward trend if you start your trend at 1999.
But they're not, even though this is bone-simple physics even more fundamental (and prior to) the GHE. I wonder why?
If you would read anything I've linked to, did any sort of research with the goal of understanding your question, rather than confirming your existing bias, you'd know that everyone has been asking the same question, came to the conclusion that the physics model is far too simple to be used as the only controlling factor, and decided that there's got to be more to the current data than what can be inferred merely from water vapor and albedo.
If you want me to take you seriously, you might want to start linking your sources. Because so far, you are batting a big fat 0, and coming across as someone who is mistaking expertise in one area for expertise in a completely different one - and making a total ass out of himself in the process.