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

How to tune people out.
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 11:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
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.

The moment I hit that I see nothing but bias and reading the rest of the article would be a waste of my time.

Regardless of which side of the debate you are on: Show some respect for the other side. There are intelligent people who may disagree with you. Both sides need to realize the other may be right and dismissing them with no respect helps no-one.

This article is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You won't keep a straight face when talking to GW supporters, why on earth would you think they'll listen to you in return? I'm guessing your article ironically goes on to mention at some point or another why GW supporters don't listen to anyone.

RE: How to tune people out.
By LeviBeckerson on 1/11/2010 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
What you see as disrespect, I see as satirical comment about how people are simply not willing to consider anything but what they are force-fed by the mass media.

If you read the article, you will see that I favor neither side of the global warming/climate change debacle, and in fact take shots at both. This is, after all, an opinion piece and my point of view which no one is obligated to respect or agree with.

But let us be honest here, slapping a "climate change" sticker over the "warming" on the old shock and awe signs was just silly. And if you take it seriously, you can consider it even more support for the views I expressed in this piece: they actually haven't got a clue what's going to happen.

RE: How to tune people out.
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the article, you will see that I favor neither side of...

My point was that once I start reading "snicker" in an article I don't take it seriously and I stop reading. Normally this is the end of it but since you've been rationally disagreeing with me in a comment above I'll be happy to finish it.

As for the "climate change" sticker: I believe that was coined by a republican political strategist that worked with Bush (jr). He was on the Daily Show a few years back and the guy was utter genius. One of his big jobs was taking polically hot terms and creating new ones that stick in the mind of the public. Some of his other creations:

war on terror = fight against global extremism.
torture = enhanced interrogation

I forget the bit but John Stewart threw some nasty term at him and the guy whipped up something genius in like 5 seconds. It was impressive.

Anyway, "climate change" was a term coined not by global warming supporters but by their opponents. Global warming supporters call it "global warming".

"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki