backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 25 at 4:23 PM

For all we know, Al Bundy's socks may be the cure for the global climate crisis.

Will the war for global warming ever be won? That depends on the amount of information we can harvest, analyze and extrapolate from. In all likelihood, the only way we will know for certain if the Earth is heading for a global warming disaster is by waiting another few thousand years and looking at history books.

But, for those not comfortable with the wait and see approach, scientists continue to plunge into one of the crucial factors thought to govern global (I’m trying not to snicker) climate change, the global carbon sink system. Roughly composed of just about every living and even more dead things, these parts of local, regional and whole-Earth ecosystems are under high scrutiny as researchers try to understand how present day climate change will further affect future climate change. The popular idea seems to be that global warming is like a snowball rolling downhill – as it rolls it picks up more snow and eventually hits something and explodes. Exploding is bad for the Earth, honest.

From the University of Colorado at Boulder comes a study supporting the theory that extended growing seasons may not be the boon for the carbon sink that many have previously thought. At least not for subalpine conifers such as the lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and Englemann spruce. It turns out these trees depend much more upon snowmelt for their summer water fix than rainfall, and in years where spring comes early due to mild winters and low snowfall, the trees actually take in less carbon dioxide over the year than when spring arrives late with heavy snow still on the ground. Up to 60% of their internal water supply from stems and needles was identified to be from spring snowmelt rather than rainfall in the fall months. We can thank our friends the hydrogen and oxygen atoms for this precise identification work.

Since around 70% of the western USA’s carbon sink is found in these subalpine forest ranges, watching the snow caps shrink yearly would definitely affect their ability to operate to capacity, should this study be accurate. Facts don’t lie; snow good, carbon dioxide bad.

On a somewhat brighter note, according to researchers at the National Oceanographic Center, Southampton, another very large and poorly understood carbon sink may be completely underestimated in present carbon cycle models. Echinoderms, which comprise a vast portion of the ocean’s calcium carbonate dump, may sequester much more carbon yearly than previously thought.

Echinoderms suck in carbon from seawater to form their skeletal systems and include such happy marine animals as star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers. When these animals find the end of their lifecycle, they typically sink to the ocean floor with their captured carbon and become indefinitely buried in the sediments. Some of the calcium carbonate finds its way back up the “biological carbon pump,” but probably much less than is taken down to the depths.

This could mean that the ocean is once again showing itself to be far more excellent at helping regulate global carbon levels, or it could just mean scientists still don’t really understand what’s going on in there.

If these studies only prove one thing it is that we, as a global community, race, organism and observer still have very little understanding in the way all of our ecosystems work together to regulate the Earth’s climate. It’s far too early for any sane person to jump on the “we’re melting, melting” or “Minnesota never left the ice age, what’s your problem” camps. There simply aren’t enough data to concretely support any given theory with certainty and these kinds of discoveries are shining examples of why.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

yes, and therefore
By spepper on 1/9/2010 10:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
yes, much is not yet understood about what exactly affects climate change, but one thing is certain: absolutely NO evidence can be pointed to, that directly links human activity to it! And therefore, any politician who tells you and demands that you accept that as fact, is a LIAR at best, and is attempting to extort money from you, in the form of carbon taxes, and such nonsense as that--




RE: yes, and therefore
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
To my understanding, there is a great deal of information that can infer a direct link between human activity to the global climate.

As well as the opposite.

So my question is, should we disbelieve it because it seems like a conspiracy or should we believe it because it might be the truth?


RE: yes, and therefore
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 2:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So my question is, should we disbelieve it because it seems like a conspiracy or should we believe it because it might be the truth?


Well said.


RE: yes, and therefore
By geddarkstorm on 1/11/2010 3:25:06 PM , Rating: 3
Science is based on the null hypothesis. Scientists are skeptics, in the sense that we are skeptic /about our own work/. We do not test what we think could happen, we test the hypothesis that /nothing/ will happen, or that it'll be utterly insignificant.

For instance, in a drug test, the null hypothesis, what is ACTUALLY being studied, is that the drug will do squat. It'll be injected, and nothing will happen, at all. That's what's actually being tested, and ONLY that. Then, when we see something happen we can now say, "ok, we've disproved our null, and here's what we got, where can we go next?".

Global warming science suffers in that I have rarely seen anyone use a null hypothesis and actually approach it in a scientific manner. They want to prove it, or they want to disprove it. The moment, the very nanosecond, a scientist starts to think that way, they are no longer a scientist. The reason is, is they will, even subconsciously, choose the parameters and massage the data in such a way as to try to steer their experiments to the end they believe it should reach.

So, we end up with a mess, masquerading as science. Computer models! Can you get any more biased and arbitrary?

It's a joke, it's embarrasing to me, a published scientist, to watch this from /both sides/. It makes the public grow confused on what science actually is (observation, that's it), and what it's purpose is (observe x in the presence/influence of y while z is being held constant -- that alone is how we gain knowledge of how things work in any field). And now the public is starting to distrust scientists. And most scientists aren't helping the matter, going on "crusades", trying to sway politicians, governments, and masses when that is not our place.

We only present the data; we are only guardians of the validity of that data and the conditions/methods surrounding that data. It's only our place to make sure knowledge is left uncorrupted. But what people make of it and do with it, is not for us to try to influence. That immediately makes us biased and kills our objective credibility.

I don't know where things are heading with all this, but it's nothing good. Gone is the days of the rigorous science of the 40s and 50s. The science that discovered proteins, DNA (yes, only 60 years ago, amazing isn't it), the atomic bomb, sent us to the moon. Now it's just.. a mess. An endless nightmare mess of bias and bickering.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound bitter, it just breaks my heart sometimes. And in the end, it will all work out, just... eventually.


RE: yes, and therefore
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your input on this. It gives me another thing to cogitate on.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki