PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet CLIMATE SCARES & CLIMATE CHANGE, 30 May 2001
--------------------------------------------------
"Scientists consider "Nature" to be one of the
premier journals for
publishing their very best, most paradigm-shifting research. An
article in
that prestigious journal is a highlight in the career of any up
and coming
researcher. But with the advent of global warming hysteria, some
Nature editors have apparently decided their primary mission is
to
influence international policy. In recent years, this once proud
journal has
published some global warming "science" that wouldn't
pass muster at your
local 8th-grade science fair (OK, that's too harsh. Local high
school
science fair.). How does that happen in light of the scientific
peer
review process-in which fellow researchers vet submissions for
their
soundness? It's a simple matter of journal editors selecting the
"right"
reviewers."
--World Climate Report, 28 May 2001
"As to why the press stories generated by the Nature papers
were so
negative, and why the scientists who produced the papers wrote so
disparagingly about the potential for forests to sequester
carbon, is
anybody's guess. There was, of course, great pressure upon the
United
States to forsake this approach to reducing the rate-of-rise of
the air's
CO2 content during the last round of Kyoto Protocol negotiations;
and
those sentiments still prevail among many national governments
(particularly in Europe), as well as within both pseudo and
serious
environmental organizations worldwide. Consequently, the
papers in
question appeared within a highly-charged political context that
may not
have been conducive to a dispassionate discussion of the data
they
contained. Even if the world was not running hot, political
passions
were; and they may well have gotten in the way of rational
thinking."
--Craig D. Idso & Keith E. Idso, 30 May 2001
"The greenhouse industry and the media loves to announce
weather
records, especially 'hot' records (the hottest here, the driest
there
etc.), but become strangely silent when 'cold' records are broken
(such as
the coldest winter in 50 years this year in Russia). This morning
(23
May 2001), Tasmania scored a record low temperature for May.
Early this
morning, Launceston Airport in northern Tasmania reached a
minimum
temperature of - 4.8°C accompanied by a severe frost.
According to
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in Hobart, Tasmania, this is
an
all-time record low temperature for May. The previous record low
for May
was set on 31st May 1959 (the last day of autumn), with a
temperature of
-4.7° C."
--John L. Daly, 23 May 2001
(1) VEGETATION KEY TO ACCURATE CLIMATE MODELING
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(2) NEW SATELLITE STUDY SHOWS VEGETATION INCREASES IN U.S.
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(3) KYOTO'S GLOBAL WARMING CONTROLS COULD HARM FORESTS
Eurekalert, 29 May 2001
(4) CARBON SUNK
New Scientist, 23 May 2001
(5) THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CARBON SINKS
CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
(6) SOLAR CLIMATE EFFECTS
CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
(7) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF A SOLAR-CLIMATE LINK
CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
(8) COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
(9) NATURE FLIPS SCIENCE THE BIRD
World Climate Report, 28 May 2001
(10) CO2 WON'T BEAT YOUR WHEAT
World Climate Report, 28 May 2001
(11) END THE SCARE, REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF GLOBAL WARMING
Tech Central Station, 28 May 2001
(12) RUSSIA: HARSH WINTER TRIGGERS WORST FLOOD DISASTER IN 100
YEARS
BBC News Online, 23 May 2001
(13) AND FINALLY: ONE HOUR OF GRASS CUTTING EQUALS 100 MILES
WORTH OF AUTO
POLLUTION
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
=========
(1) VEGETATION KEY TO ACCURATE CLIMATE MODELING
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Contacts:
A'ndrea Elyse Messer, (814) 865-9481, aem1@psu.edu
Vicki Fong, (814) 865-9481, vfong@psu.edu
May 29, 2001
Vegetation Key to Accurate Climate Modeling
Boston, Mass. -- Linking vegetation models to climate models when
approximating the Earth's past and future climates may make
climate
predictions more accurate and could provide a better picture of
the effects
of global warming on the Earth, according to Penn State
researchers.
"Recent studies show that if accurate vegetation is not
included in global
climate models, anomalies of up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit and a
third of an
inch of rain per day can occur," says Persaram O. Batra,
Penn State graduate
student in geosciences.
The way that vegetation is incorporated into a climate model is
important.
The worst case is of course when vegetation is completely
ignored. Assigning
uniform fixed vegetation, i.e. grass land or mixed forest, to the
land
masses does get vegetation into the model, but not accurately. A
better
choice would be to assign fixed accurate vegetation to land
masses, putting
grassland
where there was grassland and coniferous forest where there were
coniferous
forests. While this is a good option, it is still a static one.
The best
incorporation of vegetation is accurate, interactively modeled
vegetation
data that can influence and be influenced by the climate model.
Atmospheric global climate models often do not, in themselves,
include
vegetation data, but can be linked to separate vegetation models.
The
climate model values of such variables as temperature and
precipitation are
fed into the vegetation model, which produces a vegetation cover
for the
Earth deciding where tundra, savannahs, temperate and tropical
forests would
occur. This data, and the effects on climate, including variables
like
temperature changes and reflectivity are fed back into the
climate model
that is adjusted and the process is repeated numerous times.
Batra, David Pollard, research associate, and Eric Barron,
professor of
geosciences and director, Penn State College of Earth and Mineral
Sciences'
Environment Institute, looked at four different vegetation models
and linked
them to the GENESIS atmospheric global climate model.
"We were looking at three time periods in the past, that of
the Miocene, 20
million years ago, oxygen isotope stage three between 30 and 42
thousand
years ago, and the last glacial maximum 21,000 years ago,"
Batra told
attendees at the spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union
today (May
29) in Boston.
Batra compared the results of the four vegetation models to what
is known
about actual vegetation during those time periods on Earth.
Information on
vegetation during the last glacial maximum is fairly complete,
but what is
known about the Miocene is less complete.
"We want to see how robust the various vegetation models are
at different
time periods," says Batra. "Then we can use the best
models to see how
climate change would affect vegetation patterns in the
future."
Vegetation can have a substantial impact on climate. If an area
is covered
with tundra type vegetation, the high reflectivity of the snow,
when it
falls, will cool that area of the planet. However, if that same
area is
covered with coniferous forests, the snow would fall to the
ground and the
dark surface of the treetops would absorb more of the sun's
energy and warm,
rather than cool, the area.
The researchers found that none of the climate models tested were
perfect
and that some differences occurred between the models. Some
models did
better in modeling tropical vegetation while others were better
at temperate
vegetation. Also, some of the vegetation models consider the
effects of
carbon dioxide on plants, while others ignore carbon dioxide.
Because plant growth and type is dependent on the levels of
carbon dioxide
and carbon dioxide serves as a greenhouse gas, the researchers
believe that
its inclusion in the vegetation models may be important.
Atmospheric global climate models are large, complex computer
programs that
are only as accurate as the data they have and the variables they
cover.
Adding vegetation into the mix, provides a better picture of the
interconnected changes that occur as climate changes.
**aem**
EDITORS: Mr. Batra may be reached at (814) 865-9912 or at
pbatra@essc.psu.edu by
email.
=========
(2) NEW SATELLITE STUDY SHOWS VEGETATION INCREASES IN U.S.
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Office of News Services
University of Colorado-Boulder
CONTACT:
Jeffrey Hicke, (303) 735-4097, jeffrey.hicke@colorado.edu
Jim Scott, (303) 492-3114
May 29, 2001
NEW SATELLITE STUDY SHOWS VEGETATION INCREASES IN U.S.
An analysis of vegetation growth in North America between 1982
and 1998
using satellite observations indicates a significant increase in
the rate at
which carbon is being taken up by plants, according to a new
study.
University of Colorado at Boulder Research Associate Jeffrey
Hicke, who led
the study, said it is still unclear why North American vegetation
growth has
been increasing in the last two decades. "But we definitely
are seeing an
increase in carbon uptake that could generate a carbon sink
similar to those
observed by other researchers."
Carbon sinks, or storage areas, include the atmosphere, the
oceans and the
terrestrial environment, said Hicke, a research associate in
CU-Boulder's
department of geological sciences. A 1995 study led by CU-Boulder
indicated
the equivalent of about half of the world's fossil-fuel emissions
was
absorbed by terrestrial vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere in
1992 and
1993.
The results of a new study on the subject by Hicke, CU-Boulder
geological
sciences department Assistant Professor Greg Asner and the
California
Institute of Technology's James Randerson were presented at the
annual
spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union held May 29 to
June 2 in
Boston. Other study co-authors included Chris Field of the
Carnegie
Institute of Washington at Palo Alto, Calif. and Compton J.
Tucker and
Sietse Los of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Md.
"There definitely is a limit to how much carbon dioxide
plants can soak up,"
said Hicke. He said the amount of future uptake of carbon by
North American
vegetation will depend on the mechanisms that are driving the
processes,
which still need to be identified.
A study published in the May 24 issue of Nature by Duke
University
scientists indicated the ability of pine trees to absorb
significant amounts
of CO2 dropped markedly after three years in part because plant
nutrients
and water were depleted.
The levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere have been rising since
the
Industrial Revolution began in the late 18th century, climbing
from about
280 parts per million to 350 PPM today.
"Solid evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has
caused warming is
only now appearing," said Hicke. But the vast majority of
atmospheric
scientists believe increasing C02 and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases
released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity have
contributed
to climate warming over the past century, he said.
The U.S. regions where vegetation productivity showed the largest
increases
in the new study were managed forests in the Southeast and
croplands and
grasslands on the Central Plains.
Two other areas also showing increases were forests in southeast
Canada --
which are recovering from insect damage -- and western Canada and
Alaska.
Recent warming in the northwest part of the continent appears to
have
triggered earlier annual snowmelt and an earlier beginning to the
growing
season, Hicke said.
The observations were made in the visible and near-infrared bands
of
instruments on board several generations of the National Oceanic
and
Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High-Resolution
Radiometer
satellites. Tucker and Los from NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center produced
the satellite measurements.
"With the models and techniques we employed, we can't assess
the specific
contribution of CO2 fertilization to the stimulation of plant
growth," said
Hicke. He said increased growth of Southeast forests could be due
to
advanced agricultural practices, including more efficient
fertilizers and
improved genetic stock.
The Central Plains grasslands increase could be due to increasing
precipitation in recent years, he said. But better fertilization
and
irrigation practices also have triggered increases in cropland
vegetation in
this region, said Hicke.
"It is likely that changing land use practices, the
stimulation of
vegetation growth by increased atmospheric CO2 and climate change
are the
primary causes of the recent U.S. vegetation increases," he
said.
"There has been a big thrust recently to understand the role
and cycle of
CO2," said Hicke. "But the science is so complex, I
don't think we will have
any definitive answers any time soon."
The Bush Administration's March abandonment of a campaign pledge
to curtail
CO2 emissions by U.S. industry played a pivotal role in the April
failure of
the world's nations to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that would have
reduced
global CO2 emissions.
Note to Editors: Hicke will present results of the study on
Friday, June 1,
at the AGU meeting in Boston. The AGU Press Room telephone number
is (617)
954-3138.
===========
(3) KYOTO'S GLOBAL WARMING CONTROLS COULD HARM FORESTS
From Eurekalert, 29 May 2001
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/scb-kgw052901.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 29 MAY 2001
Contact: Reed Noss
reed_noss@conservationscience.com
541-752-7639
Society for Conservation Biology
Kyoto's global warming controls could harm forests
To help reduce global warming, the Kyoto Protocol encourages
countries to
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by planting more trees.
But the
Protocol fails to consider conservation, and countries could meet
their
commitment by replacing mature forests with rapidly-growing
plantations.
"Replacement of old forests with plantations is a 'perverse
incentive' of
the Kyoto Protocol," says Reed Noss of Conservation Science,
Inc. in
Corvallis, Oregon, in the June issue of Conservation Biology.
"The protocol
could easily do more harm than good unless accompanied by strong
incentives
to protect biodiversity."
While the U.S. commitment is now in doubt under the Bush
administration, the
government had planned to meet half its annual commitment through
land-based
carbon sinks. Noss urges countries to conserve old-growth forests
and to put
any tree plantations on marginal agricultural lands.
Noss also considered how to protect forests during climate
change. The good
news is that forests have already survived many periods of
dramatic warming
and cooling, in part by shifting, contracting and expanding their
ranges.
The bad news is that it will be harder for trees and other
species in
today's fragmented and degraded forests to shift their ranges in
response to
climate change.
To help forests adapt to climate change, Noss recommends two main
approaches. First, we should maintain or restore connections
between
forests. These include elevational corridors so species can move
up or down
mountains as necessary, as well as corridors along the
Mississippi Valley
and other major north-south river valleys that allowed dispersal
during past
climate changes.
Second, we should protect climate refugia, which are areas that
harbored
species during past climate changes. Probable climate refugia
include the
southern Appalachians and the Klamath-Siskiyou region of
California and
Oregon; Iberia, Italy and the Balkans; and rock outcrops, cool
slopes and
many other small areas.
For faxes of papers, contact Robin Meadows robin@nasw.org
For more information about the Society for Conservation Biology:
http://conbio.net/scb/
=========
(4) CARBON SUNK
From New Scientist, 23 May 2001
http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999783
Forests are not about to save the planet from greenhouse effect
by soaking
up carbon dioxide.
Under experimental conditions, extra doses of carbon dioxide
encourage trees
to grow faster. This has led to the idea that, as atmospheric
levels of the
gas rise due to industrial pollution, fast-growing forests could
absorb some
of the gas and slow down global warming.
Researchers have dubbed this the "CO2 fertilisation
effect", and the forests
"carbon sinks". But new research published this week by
two teams of
researchers suggests there is a big difference between what
happens in
greenhouse experiments and the real world.
The first team bathed trees in extra CO2 on research plots at
Duke
University in Durham, North Carolina. The trees grew faster for
three years,
but then reverted to their former growth rates. They only resumed
faster
growth when they were dosed with nitrogen fertiliser.
Supply and demand
In the real world, Ram Oren and colleagues conclude, "forest
growth is
limited by nutrient supply, in particular nitrogen", as much
as CO2. Most
forests are unlikely to be able to turn the extra CO2 in the air
into plant
growth.
And even where trees do grow faster and take up more CO2, most of
it returns
to the air again before long, warns William Schlesinger, also of
Duke
University.
In the second study, Schlesinger found that almost half of the
CO2 absorbed
by trees goes to form foliage rather than wood. Once the leaves
fall to the
ground, most of their carbon decays and returns to the air within
three
years - very little is taken up in soils.
"Carbon going into the soil has a rapid turnover time, so it
seems we should
not expect carbon in the soil to increase significantly,"
said Eric Davidson
of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, who reviewed
the new
studies for Nature.
Abandoned land
Climate analysts have estimated that around a fifth of industrial
emissions
of CO2 are reabsorbed by vegetation on land. The question is:
where and how?
Davidson says the studies suggest that CO2-fertilisation cannot
be
responsible. It is also unlikely that acid rain is supplying
extra nitrogen
to allow trees to grow taller, he says. "Soils immobilise
most of the
nitrogen inputs".
More likely, he concludes, the CO2 is being absorbed by "the
regrowth of
forests on abandoned farm land and forest land harvested a few
decades ago"
in Europe and North America.
More at: Nature (vol 411, p 431, 466, 469)
Correspondence about this story should be directed to
latestnews@newscientist.com
1900 GMT, 23 May 2001
Fred Pearce
=========
(5) THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CARBON SINKS
From CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n22edit.htm
With the publication last week of two papers in Nature that
purport to show
little CO2-induced enhancement of forest growth and soil carbon
sequestration (1, 2), the world of carbon sinks has been turned
on its head.
To read the reports of the new research in the popular press, one
gets the
impression that the very concept of biological carbon sinks is
now defunct.
It is said, for example, that "trees and soils do not
automatically absorb
and retain much carbon dioxide" (3), that "forests'
impact on carbon dioxide
may not materialize in any important way" (4), and that
people who think
"forests can be used to absorb excess carbon dioxide
accumulating in the
Earth's atmosphere and contributing to global warming may have to
think
again" (5).
The impression one gets from reading these reports, as evidenced
by the very
titles of some of them - "Tree-planting no defense against
global warming"
(6) and "Trees no savior for global warming" (7) - is
that planting trees
and allowing them to grow does extremely little in terms of
removing CO2
from the atmosphere and sequestering its carbon in long-lived
plant tissues
and soils. Nothing, however, could be further from the
truth.
Almost all of us have seen with our own eyes, and can thus vouch
for the
fact, that little seedlings typically grow into much larger
trees; and
almost half of the dry mass of those trees comes from the carbon
of the CO2
they extract from the air, as is explicitly indicated in
Reference 1. Hence,
if it's a plant and it's growing, you can be assured it's
removing CO2 from
the atmosphere and tucking away much of that CO2's carbon in its
tissues, as
well as a portion of it in the soil in which the plant is rooted.
What the two Nature studies describe is something quite
different. By means
of FACE technology, they investigate the degree to which extra
CO2 in the
air enables trees to produce extra biomass that removes an
additional amount
of CO2 from the atmosphere above and beyond the large and
visibly-obvious
amount trees are currently removing from the air. Hence, to
say, as another
report does, that "two new studies are challenging the idea
that planting
forests could be a cheap way to absorb emissions of carbon
dioxide" (8), is
to miss - or misconstrue - the more limited message of the
findings of the
new papers, which only address the question of the incremental
enhancement
of carbon sequestration caused by an incremental enrichment of
the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration. Even without any
CO2-induced enhancement of
their growth rates, for example, the current productivity of
earth's trees
is clearly large enough that "planting forests" can
have - and indeed does
have - a tremendous impact on the air's CO2 concentration.
Yet even within this more limited domain of applicability, there
are
important questions that must be addressed before the findings of
the
commotion-causing studies can be considered to be robust.
In the Oren et
al. (1) report, for example, the woody biomass of the trees'
trunks,
branches and roots was calculated from trunk-diameter-based
allometric
equations derived for the particular loblolly pine trees of the
forest
ecosystem they studied, which is a valid approach to take.
But the
equations they employed were derived from data obtained only on
trees
growing in ambient air, which could well be a serious misstep;
for the same
equations may not apply to trees growing in CO2-enriched air.
In an analogous open-top-chamber study - but of well-watered and
fertilized
sour orange trees growing in air of either 400 or 700 ppm CO2 -
Idso and
Kimball (9) determined that a single trunk-diameter-based
equation did
indeed accurately describe the above-ground woody biomass -
actually
biovolume - of the trees of both CO2 treatments. But it is
by no means
certain that the same would be true for loblolly pine trees,
especially if
the trees were rooted in soil of low nutrient content that is
sometimes
saturated with water and at other times quite deficient in this
essential
resource (1,2).
Then there's the question of root biomass. In the case of
the well-watered
and fertilized sour orange trees studied by Idso and Kimball
(10), the
percentage growth stimulation of the CO2-enriched trees was
essentially
identical both above- and below-ground, which would indeed imply
that the
one-equation-fits-all-plant-parts approach employed by Oren et
al. (1) for
calculating the whole-plant (trunk, branch and root) biomass of
CO2-enriched
trees would indeed be appropriate for well-watered and fertilized
sour
orange trees. But, again, it may not be true for loblolly
pine trees,
especially when growing in soil of low nitrogen content, which
generally
leads to greater CO2-induced increases in below-ground biomass
than in
above-ground biomass (11).
In a study of the effects of a 300 ppm increase in atmospheric
CO2
concentration on yellow poplar trees growing in a soil that was
significantly deficient in nitrogen, for example, Norby et al.
(12) could
detect no significant biomass increases in any above-ground plant
parts
after 2.7 growing seasons, which is an even more extreme finding
than that
reported by Oren et al. (1) for the latter part of their
experiment.
Nevertheless, Norby et al. did detect a 37% increase in tap root
biomass and
a 119% increase in fine root biomass. And in the very same
ecosystem
studied by Oren et al. (1), Matamala and Schlesinger (13)
documented an 86%
increase in loblolly pine tree fine-root biomass in response to
but a 200
ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which would
roughly
correspond to a 129% biomass increase for a 300 ppm increase in
atmospheric
CO2 concentration, such as that employed in the experiment of
Norby et al.
(12). Hence, it is very possible, if not highly probable,
that both the
fine and the larger-than-fine roots of the CO2-enriched trees
studied by
Oren et al. (1) did indeed experience significantly greater
increases in
biomass than did the trees' trunks and branches, contrary to what
the
researchers assumed in their paper.
Another concern about the Oren et al. analysis is that the woody
biomass
values they reported were derived from their calculated biovolume
results by
multiplying the latter numbers by experimentally-derived wood
density (mass
per volume) values, which they indicate were nearly 8% less in
the
CO2-enriched trees than in the ambient-treatment trees. But
in studies of
the very same species (Pinus taeda L.), two groups of researchers
found no
detectable differences in the wood densities of ambient and
CO2-enriched
trees (14,15), while two other groups actually reported increases
that were
as high as 15% in the wood density of the CO2-inriched trees
(16,17).
Likewise, in studies of another pine species (Pinus radiata D.
Don.), one
research group again found no differences in the densities of the
wood of
ambient-grown and CO2-enriched trees (18), while another group
found the
wood density of the CO2-enriched trees to be 5 to 6% greater
(19). And in
studies of still other species of trees, researchers have found
either no
wood density differences (16,20) or increases of 4% (21), 6%
(21), 7% (22),
8% (23), 13% (20) and 33% (14). Hence, Oren et al.'s
"lone report" of a
CO2-induced decrease in wood density seems highly suspect.
What are the potential consequences of these observations? Merely
assuming
atmospheric CO2 enrichment to have had no effect on the wood
density of the
loblolly pine trees studied by Oren et al. would raise their
reported 6 to
7% CO2-induced increases in woody biomass over the last few years
of their
study to 15 to 16% increases. Assuming a conservative 5% increase
in the
wood density of the CO2-enriched trees would further elevate the
CO2-induced
biomass increases to 21 to 22%, which for the
more-commonly-employed
experimental CO2 increase of 300 ppm would roughly correspond to
woody
biomass increases of 32 to 33%.
Additionally, these CO2-induced biomass increases should probably
be raised
even higher, in light of the likelihood that the CO2-enriched
trees of the
Oren et al. study produced significantly more root tissue than
what their
ambient-treatment-derived allometric equations predicted, due to
the low
soil fertility of their experimental site, which generally favors
greater
below-ground growth than above-ground growth under conditions of
atmospheric
CO2 enrichment. In the study of Jach et al. (24), for
example, another
species of pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing on a nutrient poor
soil had
its root biomass increased by fully three times more than its
trunk biomass
as a consequence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment experienced over a
period of
three years.
The soil carbon data of the study of Schlesinger and Lichter (2)
may also be
interpreted in a significantly different manner from that
employed by its
authors. The total carbon content of the uppermost 30 cm of
the soil
profile - which according to the authors includes "nearly
all of the root
biomass" - can be determined from their data to have been
15.5% greater in
the CO2-enriched plots than in the ambient control plots after
the first
three years of their experiment. Although this result was
noted by the
authors to not be significant in a strict statistical sense, the
difference
is nevertheless substantial. Adjusted to a 300 ppm
enrichment of the air's
CO2 content, for example, it amounts to an increase of roughly
23%.
Much more important, of course, are the changes in soil carbon
content
experienced in the ambient and CO2-enriched plots since the start
of the
differential CO2 treatments. In fact, this is the only true
measure of the
impact of the experimental elevation of the air's CO2 content
upon the
soil's ability to sequester carbon. The only reported data
that can be used
to investigate this phenomenon, however, are the percent carbon
(%C) values
for the top 15 cm of the soil profile, which at the start of the
study were
determined to be 1.432% in the control plots and 1.542% in the
CO2-enriched
plots, with the difference between them being claimed by
Schlesinger and
Lichter (2) to be "not significantly different."
After three years,
however, the %C in the control plots was reduced to 1.31%, while
the %C in
the CO2-enriched plots was increased to 1.59%; and in this case
the
difference between the latter two values was determined to be
statistically
significant.
Taking these four numbers at their face values, we can calculate
the
relative changes in the %C of the top 15 cm of soil in the
ambient and
CO2-enriched plots over the first three years of the
experiment. For the
ambient plots, the result is a relative decline of 8.5%; while
for the
CO2-enriched plots, the result is a relative increase of
3.1%. Since the
initial %C values of the two treatments were deemed to be not
significantly
different from each other, however, we could also have calculated
the
relative changes over the course of the experiment from the
average of the
two pre-treatment %C values, which is 1.487%. Redoing the
math then gives a
relative ambient-treatment %C decline of 11.9% and a relative
CO2-enriched
%C increase of 6.9%.
Viewed in this light, the importance of atmospheric CO2
enrichment to soil
carbon sequestration is immediately obvious. Under the
site-specific
conditions of the study in question, the soils of the forest
plots growing
in ambient air were actually losing carbon, i.e., they were
carbon sources;
while the soils of the plots exposed to the extra 200 ppm of CO2
were
gaining carbon, i.e., they were carbon sinks.
So what's the bottom line? In terms of trees, just a little less
than half
of the biomass that comprises their tissues is carbon that was
acquired from
the air. Hence, trees are indeed substantial carbon sinks; and
the more of
them there are, and the faster they grow, the more CO2 they
remove from the
atmosphere. In terms of carbon sequestration in soils,
there are many
complex and competing factors that come together to determine
what is
occurring in this underground realm. In general, however,
the greater the
productivity of the forest, the greater will be the input of
organic matter
to the soil and the greater will be the potential for carbon
sequestration
therein.
Superimposed upon these general "rules of thumb" are
the effects of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which typically enhances the carbon
sequestering
prowess of both trees and soils. And in the case of soils,
as is evident
from the data of Schlesinger and Lichter (2), extra atmospheric
CO2 can
sometimes turn a soil that is losing carbon into a soil that is
gaining
carbon.
As to why the press stories generated by the Nature papers were
so negative,
and why the scientists who produced the papers wrote so
disparagingly about
the potential for forests to sequester carbon, is anybody's
guess. There
was, of course, great pressure upon the United States to forsake
this
approach to reducing the rate-of-rise of the air's CO2 content
during the
last round of Kyoto Protocol negotiations; and those sentiments
still
prevail among many national governments (particularly in Europe),
as well as
within both pseudo and serious environmental organizations
worldwide.
Consequently, the papers in question appeared within a
highly-charged
political context that may not have been conducive to a
dispassionate
discussion of the data they contained. Even if the world
was not running
hot, political passions were; and they may well have gotten in
the way of
rational thinking.
Dr. Craig D. Idso, President
Dr. Keith E. Idso, Vice President
References
1. Oren, R., Ellsworth, D.S., Johnsen, K.H., Phillips, N., Ewers,
B.E.,
Maier, C., Schafer K.V.R., McCarthy, H., Hendrey, G., McNulty,
S.G. and
Katul, G.G. 2001. Soil fertility limits carbon
sequestration by forest
ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411:
469-472.
2. Schlesinger, W.H. and Lichter, J. 2001. Limited
carbon storage in soil
and litter of experimental forest plots under increased
atmospheric CO2.
Nature 411: 466-469.
3. Kirby, A. 23 May 2001. Carbon sinks 'may not help
much.' BBC News.
4. Verrengia, J.B. 23 May 2001. Global warming carbon
experiments.
Associated Press.
5. Reaney, P. 23 May 2001. Scientists query future
power of 'carbon
sinks.' Reuters.
6. Anonymous. 23 May 2001. Tree-planting no defense
against global
warming: studies. AFP.
7. Spotts, P.N. 25 May 2001. Trees no savior for
global warming. The
Christian Science Monitor.
8. Revkin, A.C. 24 May 2001. Studies challenge role
of trees in curbing
greenhouse gases. The New York Times.
9. Idso, S.B. and Kimball, B.A. 1992. Aboveground
inventory of sour orange
trees exposed to different atmospheric CO2 concentrations for 3
full years.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 60: 145-151.
10. Idso, S.B. and Kimball, B.A. 1991. Effects of two
and a half years of
atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the root density distribution of
three-year-old sour orange trees. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 55:
345-349.
11. Waring, R.H. and Schlesinger, W.H. 1985. Forest
Ecosystems: Concepts
and Management. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
12. Norby, R.J., Gunderson, C.A., Wullschleger, S.D., O'Neill,
E.G. and
McCracken, M.K. 1992. Productivity and compensatory
responses of
yellow-poplar trees in elevated CO2. Nature 357: 322-324.
13. Matamala, R. and Schlesinger, W.H. 2000. Effects
of elevated
atmospheric CO2 on fine root production and activity in an intact
temperate
forest ecosystem. Global Change Biology 6: 967-979.
14. Rogers, H.H., Bingham, G.E., Cure, J.D., Smith, J.M. and
Surano, K.A.
1983. Response of selected plant species to elevated carbon
dioxide in the
field. Journal of Environmental Quality 12: 569-574.
15. Telewski, F.W. and Strain, B.R. 1987.
Densitometric and ring width
analysis of 3-year-old Pinus taeda L. and Liquidambar styraciflua
L. grown
under three levels of CO2 and two water regimes. In:
Jacoby, G.C. and
Hornbeck, J.W. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Symposium
on
Ecological Aspects of Tree Ring Analysis. U.S. Dept. of
Energy DOE/CONF
8608144, pp. 494-500.
16. Doyle, T.W. 1987. Seedling response to CO2
enrichment under stressed
and non-stressed conditions. In: Jacoby, G.C. and Hornbeck,
J.S. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Aspects
of Tree
Ring Analysis. U.S. Dept. of Energy DOE/CONF 8608144.
National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA, pp. 501-506.
17. Telewski, F.W., Swanson, R.T., Strain, B.R. and Burns,
J.M. 1999. Wood
properties and ring width responses to long-term atmospheric CO2
enrichment
in field-grown loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Plant, Cell
and Environment
22: 213-219.
18. Donaldson, L.A., Hollinger, D., Middleton, T.M. and Souter,
E.D. 1987.
Effect of CO2 enrichment on wood structure in Pinus radiata D.
Don.
International Association of Wood Anatomists Bulletin, New Series
8:
285-295.
19. Conroy, J.P., Milham, P.J., Mazur, M. and Barlow,
E.W.R. 1990. Growth,
dry matter partitioning and wood properties of Pinus radiata D.
Don. after 2
years of CO2 enrichment. Plant, Cell and Environment 13:
329-337.
20. Cuelmans, R. 1998. Responses of trees to climate
change. In: Peter,
D., Maracchi, G. and Ghazi, A. (Eds.) Course on Climate Change
Impact on
Agriculture and Forestry, Office for Official Publications of the
EC,
Luxembourg, pp. 507-517.
21. Tognetti, R., Johnson, J.D., Michelozzi, M. and Raschi,
A. 1998.
Response of foliar metabolism in mature trees of Quercus
pubescens and
Quercus ilex to long-term elevated CO2. Environmental and
Experimental
Botany 39: 233-245.
22. Norby, R.J., Wullschleger, S.D. and Gunderson, C.A.
1996. Tree
responses to elevated CO2 and implications for forests. In:
Koch, G.W. and
Mooney, H.A. (Eds.) Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems.
Academic
Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-21.
23. Hattenschwiler, S., Schweingruber, F.H. and Korner, C.
1996. Tree ring
responses to elevated CO2 and increased N deposition in Picea
abies. Plant,
Cell and Environment 19: 1369-1378.
24. Jach, M.E., Laureysens, I. and Ceulmans, R. 2000.
Above- and
below-ground production of young Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.)
trees
after three years of growth in the field under elevated
CO2. Annals of
Botany 85: 789-798.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
========
(6) SOLAR CLIMATE EFFECTS
From CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solar.htm
How much of an influence the sun exerts on earth's climate has
long been a
topic of heated discussion in the area of global climate
change. The
primary reason for differing opinions on the subject derives from
the facts
that (1) numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between
various
measures of solar activity and climatic phenomena, and (2) the
amount of
solar radiative forcing reported in these studies is generally
found to be
so small that it is difficult to see how it could possibly
produce climatic
effects of the magnitude observed. Supporters of solar
effects theories
thus generally contend that various feedback mechanisms may
amplify the
initial solar perturbation to the extent that significant changes
in climate
do indeed result. In this summary we highlight some of the
recent
scientific literature that demonstrates the viability of such
solar-climate
linkages.
Many solar-climate studies utilize tree-ring records of 14C as a
measure of
solar activity, because solar activity (including variations in
the number
of sunspots and the brightness of the sun) influences the
production and
amount of 14C, such that periods of higher solar activity yield a
lower
production and atmospheric burden of 14C (Perry and Hsu, 2000).
This being
the case, it can be appreciated that as trees remove carbon from
the
atmosphere and sequester it in their tissues, they are recording
a history
of solar activity that could be influencing earth's
atmosphere-ocean system.
Thus, the history of 14C contained in tree rings has been
examined by a
number of authors as a proxy indicator of solar activity and
compared with
various indices of climate.
A good example of this type of work is the study of Hong et al.
(2000), who
developed a 6000-year high-resolution delta18O record from plant
cellulose
deposited in a peat bog in the Jilin Province of China (42° 20'
N, 126° 22'
E) from which they inferred the temperature history of that
location over
the past six millennia. In comparing this record with
changes in
atmospheric 14C derived from tree rings, the authors found a
"remarkable,
nearly one to one, correspondence," which led them to
conclude that the
temperature history of this region over the past 6000 years was
"forced
mainly by solar variability." Similar conclusions have
been drawn by Karlén
(1998), who analyzed changes in the sizes of glaciers and the
altitude of
the alpine tree-limit, as well as variations in the width of tree
rings in
Scandinavia, over the last 10,000 years. When comparing
these data with
tree-ring 14C anomalies, they too observed strong correlations.
Other 14C studies reveal a solar influence in Oman and
Mexico. Neff et al.
(2001) investigated the relationship between a 14C tree-ring
record and a
delta18O proxy record of monsoon rainfall intensity as recorded
in calcite
delta18O data obtained from a stalagmite in northern Oman for the
period
9,600-6,100 years ago, reporting an "extremely strong"
relationship between
the two data sets. Comparison of lake sediment core data
taken from
Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and a 14C tree-ring record covering
the past 2600
years revealed similar periodicities, leading Hodell et al.
(2001) to
conclude that "a significant component of century-scale
variability in
Yucatan droughts is explained by solar forcing."
More examples of a solar forcing of drought come from Yu and Ito
(1999),
Dean and Schwalb (2000), Black et al. (1999) and Verschuren et
al. (2000).
Yu and Ito (1999) report that recurring intervals of drought in
the Great
Plains of North America occur with periodicities of 100, 130, 200
and 400
years and that they line up "in surprising detail" with
several solar
indices, leading them to seriously consider "solar
variability as the major
cause of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great
Plains."
Dean and Schwalb (2000) report similar solar-related drought
conditions with
periodicities of 200 and 400 years for the Great Plains; and
Black et al.
(1999) report finding a solar related influence on climate
variability in
the North Atlantic, which, they contend, "may play a role in
triggering
changes in the frequency and persistence of drought over North
America." In
addition, Verschuren et al. (2000) report a solar-drought link
for
equatorial east Africa, noting that all three of the severest
drought events
of the past 700 years there were "broadly coeval with phases
of high solar
radiation, and the intervening periods of increased moisture were
coeval
with phases of low solar radiation."
Many other researchers have also commented on a solar-climate
link. Vaganov
et al. (2000) reported finding a significant correlation between
solar
activity and temperature over the past 600 years in the Asian
subarctic,
while Domak et al. (2001) make a case for similar solar
influences over the
past 13,000 years, based upon radiocarbon and spectral analyses
of data from
an ocean sediment core on the inner continental shelf of the
western
Antarctic Peninsula. In addition, Rozelot (2001) examined
variations in the
sun's radius and compared them to temperature records of the past
four
centuries, finding that "warm periods on Earth correlate
well with smaller
apparent diameter of the Sun and colder ones with a bigger
Sun."
With respect to more recent solar and climatic history, Lockwood
et al.
(1999) determined that, contemporaneously with the warming of the
earth, the
sun's total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 over the
period 1964-1996
and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901. Commenting on this
finding, Parker
(1999) noted that the doubling of the magnetic field of the sun
over the
past century was accompanied by a doubling of the number of
sunspots, and
that one consequence of the latter phenomenon is a much more
vigorous sun
that is slightly brighter, which caused him to wonder "to
what extent the
solar brightening has contributed to the increase in atmospheric
temperature
and CO2." Likewise, Broecker (1999) wonders if cycles
in the solar wind
might not have been responsible for the warming of the 1980s and
90s.
How do small changes in solar activity, as discussed above,
influence
climate? Chambers et al. (1999), Van Geel et al. (1999),
Tobias and Weiss
(2000) and Solanki et al. (2000) have each identified viable
"multiplier
effects" that can operate on solar rhythms in such a way
that minor
variations in solar activity can be reflected in more significant
variations
within the earth's atmosphere. Principal among these phenomena is
the effect
of cosmic rays on cloud cover. Recently, for example,
Kniveton and Todd
(2001) reported "evidence of a statistically strong
relationship between
cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over
ocean
surfaces at mid to high latitudes." Not surprisingly,
however, a review of
the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
to predict
future greenhouse gas-induced global warming revealed such
processes to be
inadequately represented and even ignored (Chambers et al.,
1999).
In view of these many observations, and with respect to the
claims that have
been raised about potential CO2-induced global warming in many
governmental
and political circles, we agree with Parker (1999) that "it
is essential to
check to what extent the facts support these conclusions [about
CO2 and
global warming] before embarking on drastic, perilous and perhaps
misguided
plans for global action."
References
Black, D.E., Peterson, L.C., Overpeck, J.T., Kaplan, A., Evans,
M.N. and
Kashgarian, M. 1999. Eight centuries of North
Atlantic Ocean atmosphere
variability. Science 286: 1709-1713.
Broecker, W. 1999. Climate change prediction.
Science 283: 179.
Chambers, F.M., Ogle, M.I. and Blackford, J.J. 1999.
Palaeoenvironmental
evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar
science.
Progress in Physical Geography 23: 181-204.
Dean, W.E. and Schwalb, A. 2000. Holocene
environmental and climatic
change in the Northern Great Plains as recorded in the
geochemistry of
sediments in Pickerel Lake, South Dakota. Quaternary
International 67:
5-20.
Domack, E., Leventer, A., Dunbar, R., Taylor, F., Brachfeld, S.,
Sjunneskog,
C. and ODP Leg 178 Scientific Party. 2001. Chronology
of the Palmer Deep
site, Antarctic Peninsula: A Holocene palaeoenvironmental
reference for the
circum-Antarctic. The Holocene 11: 1-9.
Hodell, D.A., Brenner, M., Curtis, J.H. and Guilderson, T.
2001. Solar
forcing of drought frequency in the Maya lowlands. Science
292: 1367-1370.
Hong, Y.T., Jiang, H.B., Liu, T.S., Zhou, L.P., Beer, J., Li,
H.D., Leng,
X.T., Hong, B. and Qin, X.G. 2000. Response of
climate to solar forcing
recorded in a 6000-year delta18O time-series of Chinese peat
cellulose. The
Holocene 10: 1-7.
Karlén, W. 1998. Climate variations and the enhanced
greenhouse effect.
Ambio 27: 270-274.
Kniveton, D.R. and Todd, M.C. 2001. On the
relationship of cosmic ray flux
and precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters 28:
1527-1530.
Lockwood, M., Stamper, R. and Wild, M.N. 1999. A
doubling of the Sun's
coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years. Nature
399: 437-439.
Neff, U., Burns, S.J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D
and Matter,
A. 2001. Strong coherence between solar variability
and the monsoon in
Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago. Nature 411: 290-293.
Parker, E.N. 1999. Sunny side of global
warming. Nature 399: 416-417.
Perry, C.A. and Hsu, K.J. 2000. Geophysical,
archaeological, and
historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate
change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:
12433-12438.
Rozelot, J.P. 2001. Possible links between the solar
radius variations and
the Earth's climate evolution over the past four centuries.
Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63: 375-386.
Solanki, S.K., Schussler, M. and Fligge, M. 2000.
Evolution of the sun's
large-scale magnetic field since the Maunder minimum.
Nature 408: 445-447.
Tobias, S.M. and Weiss, N.O. 2000. Resonant
interactions between solar
activity and climate. Journal of Climate 13: 3745-3759.
Vaganov, E.A., Briffa, K.R., Naurzbaev, M.M., Schweingruber,
F.H., Shiyatov,
S.G. and Shishov, V.V. 2000. Long-term climatic
changes in the arctic
region of the Northern Hemisphere. Doklady Earth Sciences
375: 1314-1317.
Van Geel, B., Raspopov, O.M., Renssen, H., van der Plicht, J.,
Dergachev,
V.A. and Meijer, H.A.J. 1999. The role of solar
forcing upon climate
change. Quaternary Science Reviews 18: 331-338.
Verschuren, D., Laird, K.R. and Cumming, B.F. 2000.
Rainfall and drought
in equatorial east Africa during the past 1,100 years.
Nature 403: 410-414.
Yu, Z. and Ito, E. 1999. Possible solar forcing of
century-scale drought
frequency in the northern Great Plains. Geology 27:
263-266.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
=========
(7) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF A SOLAR-CLIMATE LINK
From CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n22c2.htm
Reference
Neff, U., Burns, S.J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D
and Matter,
A. 2001. Strong coherence between solar variability
and the monsoon in
Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago. Nature 411: 290-293.
What was done
For the period 9,600-6,100 years before present, the authors
investigated
the relationship between a 14C tree-ring record and a delta18O
proxy record
of monsoon rainfall intensity as recorded in calcite delta18O
data obtained
from a stalagmite in northern Oman.
What was learned
The correlation between the two data sets was reported to be
"extremely
strong," and a spectral analysis of the data revealed
statistically
significant periodicities centered on 779, 205, 134 and 87 years
for the
delta18O record and periodicities of 206, 148, 126, 89, 26 and
10.4 years
for the 14C record.
What it means
Because variations in 14C tree-ring records are generally
attributed to
variations in solar activity and intensity, and because of this
particular
14C record's strong correlation with the delta18O record, as well
as the
closely corresponding results of the spectral analyses, the
authors conclude
there is "solid evidence" that both signals (the 14C
and delta18O records)
are responding to solar forcing. The physical mechanism by
which slight
changes in solar activity are amplified to the point that they
can affect
the precipitation pattern of this or any other region remains
elusive,
however, demonstrating we still have much to learn about earth's
climate
system, even when it is clear which factor (solar variability)
must be the
driver of the observed climate change (because climate change on
earth
cannot possibly influence what occurs on the sun).
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
===========
(8) COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
From CO2 Science Magazine, 30 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n22c1.htm
Reference
Kniveton, D.R. and Todd, M.C. 2001. On the relationship of cosmic
ray flux
and precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters 28:
1527-1530.
What was done
Previous work has suggested that increased (decreased) cosmic ray
flux at
the solar minimum (maximum) causes increased (decreased)
ice-nucleation,
precipitation efficiency and precipitation at high geomagnetic
latitudes and
decreased (increased) ice-nucleation, precipitation efficiency
and
precipitation at low geomagnetic latitudes. Using cosmic ray data
recorded
by ground based neutron monitors, global precipitation data from
the Climate
Predictions Center Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP)
project, and
estimates of monthly global moisture from the National Centers
for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis project, the authors
set out to
evaluate whether there is any empirical evidence to support the
hypothesis
that solar variability (determined by changes in cosmic ray flux)
is linked
to climate change (manifested by changes in precipitation and
precipitation
efficiency) over the period 1979-1999.
What was learned
The authors report there is "evidence of a statistically
strong relationship
between cosmic ray flux (CFR), precipitation (P) and
precipitation
efficiency (PE) over ocean surfaces at mid to high
latitudes," as variations
in both precipitation and precipitation efficiency for mid to
high latitudes
showed a close relationship in both phase and magnitude with
variations in
cosmic ray flux, varying 7-9% during the solar cycle of the
1980s. Other
potential factors that might explain the trends in precipitation
and
precipitation efficiency were ruled out due to poorer statistical
relationships.
What it means
This study suggests that small changes in solar output can induce
significant changes in earth's climate. With empirical evidence
mounting for
a solar-induced cloud and water vapor climate feedback (see Solar
Climate
Effects and Extraterrestrial Climate Effects in our Subject
Index), and
given the fact that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has
risen by a
factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996 and by a factor of 2.3
since 1901
(see Additional Evidence for a Solar-Climate Link), climate
modelers should
be paying more attention to these phenomena and incorporating
them into
their general circulation models of the atmosphere; for it could
be that
much, if not all, of the 20th century warming had its origins in
solar
variability and not the historical rise in the air's CO2
concentration.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
==========
(9) NATURE FLIPS SCIENCE THE BIRD
From World Climate Report, 28 May 2001
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v6n18/feature.htm
Scientists consider "Nature" to be one of the premier
journals for
publishing their very best, most paradigm-shifting research. An
article in
that prestigious journal is a highlight in the career of any up
and coming
researcher.
But with the advent of global warming hysteria, some Nature
editors have
apparently decided their primary mission is to influence
international
policy. In recent years, this once proud journal has published
some global
warming "science" that wouldn't pass muster at your
local 8th-grade science
fair (OK, that's too harsh. Local high school science fair.).
How does that happen in light of the scientific peer review
process-in which
fellow researchers vet submissions for their soundness? It's a
simple matter
of journal editors selecting the "right" reviewers.
Almost any manuscript
can be published (or rejected) if an editor wants it to be. In
Nature, for
example-a British publication that routinely editorializes on the
U.S.
government's intransigence on the Kyoto Protocol-it's hardly
surprising that
the editors publish several new global warming scare stories each
month.
Pick an obscure bird or butterfly that had population declines
for a year or
two, claim that, "although much study remains to be
done," the declines
could be related to global warming, send it off to Nature, and
you're one
giant step closer to tenure. And the resulting press brouhaha,
with you at
center stage, won't hurt your cause, either.
Such context explains the recent Nature paper entitled,
"Emperor Penguins
and Climate Change," by French scientists Christophe
Barbraud and Henri
Weimerskirch. Instead of operating in our usual mode of telling
you what
they did and why they're wrong, let's just look at some of their
graphs,
which we took directly from the paper. Figure 1 (top) shows
average winter
and summer temperatures recorded near the Dumont d'Urville
Station's emperor
penguin colony in Terre Adélie, Antarctica. The bottom portion
of Figure 1
shows a large decline in the number of breeding pairs. But please
note:
There is no evidence of warming or cooling in summer; there is no
evidence
of warming or cooling in winter. Yet given the paper's title, how
many of
you think that the authors uncovered no relationship between
penguins and
climate?
Figure 1. Historical record of summer and winter temperature in
the penguin
colony (top) and number of breeding pairs observed (bottom).
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v6n18/feature.htm
Now let's look at Figure 2, a plot of modeled survival estimates
of adult
male and female penguins against annual sea-surface temperature
(SST)
departures, using data from 1982-1988. The authors write:
...SST accounted for most (89.8%) of this yearly variation in
survival.
Emperor penguins survived less when SSTs were higher...To our
knowledge,
this is the first time that the consequences of changes in major
oceanic
parameters on the dynamics of an Antarctic large predator have
been
identified, and particularly that the proximate and ultimate
factors
affecting the dynamics of the population have been documented.
Figure 2. Sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies vs. survival
probability
of adult penguins. Notice how this relationship is unduly
influenced by the
observations from a single very warm year.
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v6n18/feature.htm
They have seven years of data. Seven! Seven data points do not
provide
enough information to meet any standard of statistical
robustness. And
furthermore, one of their data points is unduly influential:
Removing it
from the analysis greatly weakens their conclusion. The authors
go on to
link penguin population changes to sea ice extent, and conclude
that
"emperor penguins may be very susceptible to environmental
variability
[emphasis ours-why not just say what you mean? -Eds.] and that
further
long-lasting coupled anomalies are likely to affect their
populations."
Next comes the press barrage. Here's the coverage from the
on-line National
Geographic News May 9 (beneath a photograph of an adult penguin
feeding its
young):
...researchers have shown that an abnormally long warm spell in
the Southern
Ocean during the late 1970s contributed to a decline in the
population of
emperor penguins...
Terre Adélie experiences a warming period every four or five
years that
generally lasts about a year. In the late 1970s, however, the
warming
continued for several years...
Weimerskirch thinks the unusually warm spell was probably the
result of
global warming. [Again, see Figure 1. -Eds.]
And here's what the BBC had to say a day later (beneath the
requisite
picture of cute penguins):
French scientists have warned that penguins in the Antarctic
could
be very susceptible to changes in climate and could be threatened
by any
long-term temperature shifts. The researchers made their remarks
after
observing a dramatic decline in the population of one bird
colony, which
coincided with an abnormal warm period in the Southern Ocean in
the
1970s. [Reminder: See Figure 1. -Eds.]
To the BBC's credit, its reporters found some British researchers
who
weren't quite so willing to jump on the global warming/penguin
bandwagon.
But to the unknowing public, the damage has been done. Just
another piece of
mounting evidence that global warming is having major ecological
impacts.
What's unusual about this particular instance is that the authors
are not to
blame. They made no effort to hide the fact that there is
obviously no
relationship between the penguin die-off and temperature. Since
their
underlying premise was that this event was caused by climate
change, it
became possible to find the mechanism despite the mountain of
evidence
against it that was staring them in the face. Perhaps they should
be
congratulated.
This episode is reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould's account of a
scientist
named Morton in his book The Mismeasure of Man. Morton, who was
convinced
that cranial capacity was a measure of intelligence and that
European males
were of superior intellect, filled skulls of different races and
sexes with
BBs to estimate the volume of each skull in his collection.
According to
Gould, Morton tightly packed the white male skulls with BBs but
was less
enthusiastic in filling the nonwhite male skulls. Gould found it
interesting
that Morton fully documented his results and methods, suggesting
that Morton
was completely unaware that he was biasing his own experiment.
(In an ironic
twist, later research on Morton's results suggest that Gould
himself may
have exaggerated the extent of Morton's biases.)
Clearly, the authors of the penguin paper, and the editors and
reviewers for
Nature, see a global warming signature in Figure 1 that
completely eludes
us. Is that because of our scientific preconceptions or theirs?
One of the fundamental tenets of science is that all results must
be viewed
with a healthy dose of skepticism. Numerous statistical tests
have been
devised to overcome that skepticism-to persuade a wary reviewer
that a set
of results could only very rarely arise by random chance alone.
One warm
year in a seven-year sample, as Figure 2 shows, provides zero
statistical
evidence of a climate change impact. The sample is simply not
large enough
to support any conclusions. But when political expediency trumps
scientific
scrutiny, healthy skepticism is casually dismissed. And so,
apparently, is
the credibility of one of the world's great science journals.
References:
Barbraud, C., and H. Weimerskirch, 2001. Emperor penguins and
climate
change, Nature, 411, 183-186.
Gould, S.J., 1981, The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton & Co.
===========
(10) CO2 WON'T BEAT YOUR WHEAT
From World Climate Report, 28 May 2001
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/v6n18/greening.htm
By Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D.
Arizona State University
A current issue of New Phytologist is completely devoted to the
effect of
elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on the global ecosystem. Not
surprisingly, several of those articles deal exclusively with
wheat growth
rates; indeed, wheat is very popular with the scientific set,
thanks to its
responsiveness to weather and climate.
In the first study, a team of scientists from the Netherlands,
Argentina,
Denmark, and Germany built a sophisticated computer model of
wheat-growth
processes. They tested that model using wheat grown at CO2 levels
of 410
parts per million (ppm) and 680 ppm. Among their many findings,
Rodriguez
and colleagues reported that "elevated CO2 promoted final
biomass by 12
percent" and "photosynthesis was increased by 33
percent" when CO2 was
higher. Radiation use efficiency, they found, increased by 39
percent when
atmospheric carbon dioxide rose.
Scientists from Arizona, Germany, and Nebraska developed a
numerical model
of wheat growth that they compared with their model simulations
to wheat
grown in central Arizona with natural and elevated (550 ppm)
atmospheric CO2
concentrations. Grossman-Clarke and colleagues noted from the
outset that
many previous studies had shown "an average increase in
growth and yield of
about 30 percent" when CO2 doubled. In discussing final
grain biomass, they
found that "This translates in a CO2 effect of 12 [percent]
and 15 percent
for the measurements and the simulations, respectively, under
unlimited
water supply and the higher values of 25 [percent] and 34 percent
under
water limitation." Furthermore, "The CO2 effect on
grain mass is clearly
higher under water limitation for both the measured and simulated
results."
They found that root biomass increased under elevated CO2, which
gave the
plants a competitive advantage in terms of water uptake.
And finally, a team of scientists from Washington and Arizona
grew spring
wheat over four different growing seasons in central Arizona in
field plots
with atmospheric CO2 concentrations maintained at natural (near
350 ppm) and
550 ppm. The levels of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer varied.
When the
nitrogen levels were low, the grain quality and bread-making
quality were
negatively impacted by lower CO2. But they concluded that
"with ample
nitrogen fertilizer, the effects will be minor."
These three articles show us that with elevated atmospheric CO2
concentrations, a) wheat biomass will increase, b) wheat
increases its
overall growth efficiency, and c) with adequate fertilizer,
future grain
quality need not suffer.
Reference:
Grossman-Clarke, S., et al.,. 2001. Modelling a spring wheat crop
under
elevated CO2 and drought. New Phytologist, 150, 315-335.
Kimball, B.A., et al.,. 2001. Elevated CO2, drought and soil
nitrogen
effects on wheat grain quality. New Phytologist, 150, 295-303.
Rodriguez, D., et al., 2001. Modelling the response of wheat
canopy
assimilation to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. New Phytologist,
150,
337-346.
==============
(11) END THE SCARE, REPORT THE UNCERTAINTY OF GLOBAL WARMING
From Tech Central Station, 28 May 2001
http://www.techcentralstation.com/EnviroScienceTechnology.asp?ID=60
"New research findings have identified declines in the
extent of
Arctic sea ice and its thickness over the past several decades.
The average
thickness from the ice surface to the bottom of the ice pack has
declined
by about 40 percent. A related study ... estimate(s) the
probability
that the observed trends could be caused entirely by natural
variability is
less than 2 percent. This research suggests that human activities
are very
likely contributing to the loss of Arctic ice."
That is how the U.S. Global Change Research Program public
relations
department characterized one of the group's top accomplishments
last year.
The report of the Arctic meltdown was greeted with doomsday
headlines and as
confirmation of humans being the source of global warming. In
January, the
World Resources Institute even trumpeted that finding as a reason
President
George W. Bush should resume climate talks and seek ratification
of the 1997
Kyoto Protocol, an action that would require a 30 percent cut in
U.S. fossil
fuel use at substantial cost to workers and the economy.
In recent weeks, though, there's been some good news about Arctic
ice that
the media have chosen to ignore. A Swedish researcher, performing
a
re-examination of the data garnered on Arctic ice by U.S.
submarine
measurements, reported in Geophysical Research Letters in March
that there
has been no thinning of ice in the Arctic Sea for the last dozen
years. In
April, at an international meeting of Arctic scientists, Greg
Holloway, a
Canadian scientist who has studied the Arctic for decades,
provided a reason
for the discrepancy: Arctic ice oscillates with the winds in 50
year cycles.
The submarines' measurements didn't take the movement into
account.
The point of this is not to say that the initial Arctic ice study
was bad
science or that the most recent reports are free of flaws. It is
to caution
the public and policymakers against being rushed to action by
scaremongers
and the media who broadcast their message. For the science of
climate
change, despite what proponents of the theory of global warming
claim, is
hardly settled. It is filled with uncertainty.
This is not a narrowly held view. It was the message delivered in
a National
Academy of Science's report, "Global Environmental Change:
Research Pathways
for the Next Decade." The report issued in 1999 was
requested by the
government as a critique of the first decade of research into
global climate
change and as a guide for the next decade.
It's important to appreciate the efforts of scientists drawn
together to
explore issues of public import. And the media often pick
up NAS findings
and report them to the public. What was noticeable about the
"Pathways"
report and subsequent follow-ups is the absence of attention by
the press.
The question is why? Is it because this report upset - as do the
studies on
Arctic ice -- the preconceived notions that the science of
climate change is
settled and mankind is its cause?
A key conclusion of the NAS scientists was that "a great
deal more needs to
be understood ... about global environmental change before we
concentrate on
'mitigation' science." It warned that: "Anthropogenic
global change (that
is, climate changes caused by mankind) cannot be assessed without
adequate
understanding and documentation of natural climate variability on
time-scales of years to centuries - in other words, without
adequate
baseline understanding." It found that "the
impressive, and abrupt, swings
in climate recorded over the past several thousand years may, if
anything,
understate the potential for natural climate variability."
The report noted uncertainties in measurement of sea level and
temperature.
It posed a dozen research questions about greenhouse gases that
needed
answering. It raised serious reservations about the modeling
being used as
confirmation of global warming. It called for better observations
of
conditions on the lands, oceans and in the atmosphere before
drawing
meaningful conclusions. Follow up NAS reports have reiterated
many of these
same reservations. A report "The Science of Regional and
Global Change:
Putting Knowledge to Work," for example, noted: "We
still do not have
sufficient knowledge or analytical capability to fully assess the
magnitude
of ... (environmental) changes."
Such findings point to the need not for rapid action by
policymakers, as
pushed by certain European diplomats and environmental
organizations, but
for more research on climate and its variability. And those
researchers
shouldn't be pressured by politics or encouraged by publicity to
find a
particular answer. They should be given the space, the time, the
funding and
support to seek and find the truth.
The science of climate change today does not call for rash action
that could
raise havoc with economies worldwide and even cause worse damage
to the
environment over time. Indeed, the science tells us such
self-inflicted
economic damage is unnecessary, unwarranted and foolish. It is
time that
story came out.
Copyright 2001, TechCentralStation.com.
=========
(12) RUSSIA: HARSH WINTER TRIGGERS WORST FLOOD DISASTER IN 100
YEARS
From the BBC News Online, 23 May 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1346000/1346139.stm
Dykes could save Siberian city
A second wave of flood water is heading along the River Lena
towards the
Siberian city of Yakutsk, but officials expect fortified dykes to
protect
the city after bombing loosened a blockage downstream.
Emergencies Minister Sergei Shoigu said water levels were
dropping and that
the effects of Wednesday's wave "won't be as
catastrophic" as the one that
hit on Tuesday.
Officials said they expected the crest to hit Yakutsk around 5pm
local time
(0700GMT).
Inundations upstream have killed five people and left two others
missing in
the city of Lensk.
The floods are the worst in a century
Emergency workers spent Tuesday frantically reinforcing dykes in
Yakutsk, a
city of 200,000 inhabitants some 4,830km (3,000 miles) east of
Moscow.
Thousands of people have already been evacuated, but some people
are
refusing to leave their houses in for fear of looting, taking
refuge instead
in their attics and on roofs.
The floods - the worst to hit Siberia for a century - were
triggered by a
spring thaw after a particularly harsh winter.
The waters rose to record levels on Tuesday morning, but subsided
after
bombers and helicopter gunships were used to blast away ice jams
in the vast
River Lena.
Reinforcing dykes
Emergency workers in Yakutsk have been using heavy trucks to dump
sand in
dykes around residential areas.
Hospital patients who are able to walk were sent home to prepare
for the
emergency, while others have been moved to higher floors.
Bombs were used to break up the ice
City authorities have opened 35 evacuation centres with capacity
for 20,000
people.
People in nearby villages have driven their livestock onto higher
ground,
but some cattle have drowned.
In one district of Yakutsk, where the water reached the windows
of
one-storey wooden houses, the mood was almost festive, as people
huddled in
boats and drank vodka.
In the city centre, rescue workers have been diving around in
buses
broadcasting flood warnings over loudspeakers. Schools and
factories are
closed and the sale of alcohol in shops and restaurants has been
banned.
"If the water hits the city, it will be very cold and people
will start
warming themselves up in the usual Russian way. It will be much
easier for
us to save them if they are sober," a regional spokeswoman
said.
Wiped out
Floodwaters from the river Lena, Russia's fourth longest,
devastated the
town of Lensk last week.
In Lensk thousands of people are homeless and 1,800 homes
destroyed.
Emergency officials there have set up camps, and are handing out
bread,
water and hot meals.
Though spring flooding happens every year in Russia, the current
exceptional
levels could devastate Yakutsk, which is built on a forest of
mainly wooden
stilts.
"What happened this year is basically what you would expect
to see every 100
years," said Lev Kuchment of the Institute for Water
Problems in Moscow.
Before the floods, scientists predicted the thaw of the
permafrost resulting
from climate change could destroy most of the city's buildings by
2030.
Copyright 2001, BBC
=============
(13) AND FINALLY: ONE HOUR OF GRASS CUTTING EQUALS 100 MILES
WORTH OF AUTO
POLLUTION
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
News Service
American Chemical Society
Washington, D.C.
Contact:
Beverly Hassell, b_hassell@acs.org,
202-872-4065
2001-05-29
One hour of grass cutting equals 100 miles worth of auto
pollution
The air pollution from cutting grass for an hour with a
gasoline-powered
lawn mower is about the same as that from a 100-mile automobile
ride,
according to a new study from Sweden, which recommends using
catalytic
converters on mowers. The report is the first to compare lawn
mower
pollution with auto mileage, according to the researchers.
The recommendation is reported in the June 1 issue of
Environmental Science
& Technology, a peer-reviewed journal of the American
Chemical Society, the
world's largest scientific society.
One significant pollutant from mowers is polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons,
or PAHs, said Roger Westerholm, Ph.D., an assistant professor at
Stockholm
University in Stockholm, Sweden. He claims such emissions,
similar for both
riding and push mowers, can be cut more than 80 percent using a
catalytic
converter like those used in automobiles.
Westerholm found that the worst case of lawn mower PAH emissions
totaled
more than 4,000 micrograms per hour using unleaded fuel without a
catalytic
converter. Average emissions dropped to nearly 800 micrograms
over the same
time period with the addition of a catalytic converter, he said.
Some PAHs,
including a few in lawn mower emissions, are classified as
probable
carcinogens by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
"Obviously, if catalysts will become mandatory on lawn mower
engines, and
possibly other small engines as well, a significant reduction of
exhaust
components will be achieved," Westerholm said.
In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued the
so-called
"Phase I" rules, which mandated a 32 percent reduction
in emissions for
small "non-road" engines. This affects all engines less
than 25 horsepower
produced after 1997, including mowers, leaf blowers and chain
saws.
According to an EPA study prior to the Clean Air Act of 1990,
small engines
from lawn and garden equipment make up nearly 9 percent of some
types of air
pollution. While current mowers meet the reduced emissions
standards,
catalytic converters would lower emissions levels further,
Westerholm said.
In the Swedish testing, the researchers used regular unleaded
fuel in a
typical four-stroke, four horsepower lawn mower engine and found,
after one
hour, that the PAH emissions are similar to a modern
gasoline-powered car
driving approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles). A typical
push-type lawn
mower is run for an average of 25 hours per year, according to
the Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute. A higher-octane fuel known as alkylate
also was
tested and resulted in lower emissions. Alkylate is difficult to
find in the
United States and significantly more expensive than regular
unleaded fuel in
Europe.
Catalytic converters are already available on some European
mowers,
Westerholm reported. The pollution-control devices have been
required on
U.S. made cars since the late 1970s.
"Using a catalyst would help prevent most emissions from
small engines," he
said. "Of course, people could also use an
electrical-powered lawn mower
instead."
The research cited above was funded by the Swedish Environmental
Protection
Agency.
# # #
The online version of the research paper cited above was
initially published
May 4 on the journal's Web site. Journalists can arrange access
to this site
by sending an email to newsroom@acs.org
or calling the contact person for
this release.
Roger Westerholm, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the
department of
analytical chemistry at Stockholm University in Stockholm,
Sweden.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.