Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Met Scientist On Climate - "The More We Look, The More Positive Feedbacks We Find" - Independent

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:09 PM
Original message
Met Scientist On Climate - "The More We Look, The More Positive Feedbacks We Find" - Independent
EDIT

"The main concern is that the more we look, the more positive feedbacks we find," says Olivier Boucher, a climate scientist at the Met Office. "That's not the case when it comes to negative feedbacks. There seems to be far fewer of them." The sentiment is echoed by Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge: "When we look at the list of all the feedbacks in the climate, the list of positive feedbacks is worryingly long - a lot longer than the negative feedbacks. To be honest, it's a wonder that the climate has remained so stable."

Let's stick with Arctic sea ice a bit longer before looking at other issues that emerged 2006. In March, Nasa satellites monitored a 28-year record low for winter sea ice. Normally sea ice recovers during the long Arctic winter, but this was the second consecutive year that the ice failed to re-form fully to is previous winter extent. This meant there was less ice at the start of the northern summer, with the result that last September saw the second monthly minimum for summer sea ice - almost hitting the record minimum set in September 2005. During the past four or five years, there has been an acceleration in the rate at which sea ice is melting, a change that some scientists put down to a positive feedback. "Our hypothesis is that we've reached the tipping point," says Ron Lindsay of the University of Washington in Seattle. "For sea ice, the positive feedback is that increased summer melt means decreased winter growth and then even more melting the next summer, and so on."

EDIT

While we are in the northern hemisphere, take a look at another positive feedback that scientists investigated in 2006. This is connected to the frozen permafrost of Siberia and northern Canada, which lock up vast stores of carbon in the form of methane, a gas formed by the decomposition of organic matter. For more than 12,000 years, this methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - has been safely stored under the permanently frozen ground. But now the permafrost is melting and the gas is bubbling free into the atmosphere.

Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University in Russia, has been studying the extent of the melting permafrost of Western Siberia, the site of the world's biggest frozen peat bog. During the past few years, he has watched lakes getting bigger and bigger as the solid permafrost underneath liquifies. Normally, patches on white lichen on high Siberian ground reflect the sun's rays and help to keep the ground underneath cold. But as the dark lakes expand, more heat is absorbed and more permafrost melts. "As we predicted in the early 1990s, there's a critical barrier," says Professor Kirpotin. "Once global warming pushes the melting process past that line, it begins to perpetuate itself."

The once-frozen peat bogs of Siberia - bigger than France and Germany combined - began to "boil" furiously in the summer of 2006 as methane bubbled to the surface. Exactly how much is being released into the atmosphere is unknown, although some estimates put it as high as 100,000 tons a day - which means a warming effect greater than America's man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. But Katey Walter of the University of Alaska believes even this could be seriously underestimated. In a study published in Nature in September, Walter and her colleagues calculated that the level of methane emissions from Siberia could be anywhere between 10 per cent and 63 per cent higher than anyone had hitherto suspected. "We have shown that the North Siberian lakes are a significantly larger source of atmospheric methane than previously recognised," she says.

EDIT

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=65583
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. lol -- that siberia thing is SO going to bite us on the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brokensymmetry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Our hypothesis is that we've reached the tipping point,"
Now, there's a statement to start the New Year with.

If true, we've run out of time. Kyoto and other such
initiatives are mere rearrangement of the deck chairs
on a doomed Titanic.

Our children will curse us. Our grandchildren will
hate us. And our great-grandchildren...they
won't exist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe it's time for this.
I don't say this lightly, but desperate measures may be needed. :cry:

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39526/story.htm
Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect

<snip>

Crutzen said it was necessary to study the negative consequences, but he did not expect a rise in acid rain because the amount of sulphur injected would be a small percentage of the sulphates polluting the lower atmosphere today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. they say if they inject sulphur, our sky will go from blue to white.
how horrendously odd that would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Do you have a cite for that?
I don't think that happened in the past from volcanic eruptions. This would simply be a man made version of past volcanic eruptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. it was an article in yahoo science. I cannot remember which. I will
try and find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh-oh. Now you tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Or, as famous scientists are wont to say . . .
"Oops!"

May as well have another :beer: - have one on me, NaderNadir!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. one of several reasons why a sudden Ice Age
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 07:36 PM by meow mix
is not going to happen, regardless of which ocean currents are stopping and starting. well.. at least in the models which make the most sense to me.

so...we get a hothouse and no ice age at least untill the feedback mechanisms run out of steam, and atmospheric composition returns to a state which will allow for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yup, and a lot of adaptative pressure until then
We shall see how many species make it through the bottleneck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. If we have reached a tipping point
then the behavior of ths system is dominated by transients. Predicting the final stable state is difficult. Imagine a pencil balanced on its tip. We know it won't stay balanced long ... it is already at a tipping point. Predict in what direction of the compass it will land when it falls. Difficult. Predict its exact motion as it falls. Harder.

We are now crossing uncharted territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC