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

RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 1:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and lets not get into the fact that none of the current models were able to predict the current cooling trend, or maybe we should.


I believe we're near the tail end of a predicted 15 year cooling trend right now.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/11/2010 1:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
...but... I otherwise agree with you.

There are limits to the models and while some minute details will average out over a long time, other minute variable could cause substantial change (innaccuracies) over time.


RE: The World is Too Big
By kattanna on 1/11/2010 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
others say we are in the beginning of a 20-30 year cooling trend.

and thats the real problem. no 2 models confirm each other, and none can accurately make any real predictions.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/12/2010 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I could be wrong. I was paraphrasing from a vague memory. The models actually aren't too bad given the scale of what they are trying to accomplish.

This brings up an even bigger problem. We're all a bunch of f'n armchair scientists who are not directly involved in climate research yet we all think we're experts.

The best is when someone breaks out the "it's all just cycles" or "it's all just (insert obvious thing)". Thanks guy! The scientists researching this for half their lives never thought of a variable like sunspots! That's why their all wrong...because joe public thought of something joe doctorate didn't.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/12/2010 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
they're


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is some of us are scientists, with valid input.

My math is very much capable of answering this entire thing, and I have pointed out it has as much to do with the whole as anything else.

The answer lies in history, yet our own scientists (read earlier DailyTech articles) have purposely LIED about the history. The answer is there, just need to examine the truth. I have seen enough of the truth to base my professional opinion upon it.

That opinion is: "Man affects the climate only in such minor ways as to be lower than a hundredth of a decimal of a percentage. While this percentage can increase in certain localized regions, in the whole the entirety of the world is much more a modifier of weather than anything we could ever do short of nuking the entire planet in a cascade, rather than a single strike. The entire ecosystem clearly has built in balancers, with the ability to cope for variances in the entire ecosystem in a variety of directions, and we cannot affect this system to the extent Al Gore and other so called AGW believing scientists say."


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 5:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bow out of this argument soon (it gets old as I'm sure you know) but I would at least like to thank you for your courtesy. Such discussions usually go to sh1t but this one hasn't.

I think you and I disagree and I think both of our minds are pretty well made up. However I also think both of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. As long as science continues to be open to the idea that it could be wrong then science will be alive and healthy.

I'll throw one last thought at this portion of your opinion:

quote:
The entire ecosystem clearly has built in balancers, with the ability to cope for variances in the entire ecosystem in a variety of directions, and we cannot affect this system to the extent Al Gore and other so called AGW believing scientists say


I think our ecosystem's natural ability to balance is more than enough to take care of our impact . A million years from now you may look back to see that it only took mother nature 1000 years to completely blot out the source of excessive greenhouse gasses. :(


RE: The World is Too Big
By JediJeb on 1/13/2010 5:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you and I disagree and I think both of our minds are pretty well made up. However I also think both of us are open to the idea that we may be wrong. As long as science continues to be open to the idea that it could be wrong then science will be alive and healthy.


I didn't get in on the begining of the discussion, but I will agree this one has been rather civil and productive for the reason you stated. I think the problem we not experts have with the current pro AGW scientists is that most seem to not follow the above statement on being able to admit they could be wrong. That is what is ruining the whole study of the change in climate and possibly driving us into some very bad political areas with the false belief that government can control the climate.

Someone mentioned using their knowledge of math in examining the problem, I use my knowledge of chemistry. The one thing about many of the theories that troubles me the standard line on temperature versus CO2 concentration in the oceans. The AGW group says that CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise, causing the ocean to absorb more CO2 and become more acidic. The problem with that from a chemists view is that as temperatures rise the ocean will desorb CO2 which should make it become less acidic. It would seem that CO2 rise in the atmosphere should follow behind temperature rise not cause it. Their theory from a chemistry standpoint would suggest that climate over-rides the laws of chemistry and physics which should not be able to happen. I may be wrong and not be seeing something that is taking place there, but none of the AGW theories have yet to explain the discrepancy.


RE: The World is Too Big
By Smilin on 1/13/2010 5:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The AGW group says that CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise, causing the ocean to absorb more CO2 and become more acidic.


I thought the AGW consensus was the opposite of that. Warming should cause the oceans to emit CO2 rather than absorb it.


RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
There are so many 'ocean this and ocean that' theories as to make me cry for sanity. All the ones who include the ocean have so many variances in what is supposed to happen, it almost feels like they are trying hard to account for anything so they can say 'eureka' when their model follows the oceans a bit.

Recently however Al Gores primary scientist backtracked when he said the Oceans were not heating as much as his models had indicated they should, showing a greater ability to diffuse heat somehow.

The real scientists of the oceans however have said... oh crap I forget the word... Submarines move between the layers in the ocean commonly... dangit I hate forgetting a word!!! Anyways these thermal barriers keep divergent tempatured waters away from each other, and each section can grow, or shrink, with local temperature conditions.

The layers therefore can be huge for a warm spot, when weather above increases, compacting the lower, more cooler, levels down, or it can be visa versa. The current situations also help dictate changes in how these thermal levels work, since the areas with a permanent current get cycled from warm to cold, or visa-versa.

But your chemical study could be a great avenue to go down. The scientists I follow have said a lot that carbon dioxide in the past increased as a result of heating, and not the other way around.


RE: The World is Too Big
By JediJeb on 1/14/2010 2:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Is the word " thermocline "?


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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