| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Clearing smoke may trigger global warming rise |
| 2005-06-30 |
| Interesting study that highlights there is a simple solution to global warming should it ever prove to be a real problem (unlike the Kyoto idiocy). The article predictably ignores the obvious potential to introduce dust into the atmosphere to cool the climate. Unlike reducing CO2 levels which would take decades to centuries to produce a measureable effect, changing dust levels would work in days and also clear in days. This means we could cool the climate over very short timescales and adjust what is done in light of the actual effects. The thermal chimney planned for Australia as a power generation facility would appear to an ideal mechanism to introduce controlled levels of dust into the mid-level atmosphere. I wait without real expectation that such a simple and apparently effective idea can penetrate the politically motivated fog of Kyoto. Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research. Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far. Three top climate researchers claim that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere should have warmed the world more than they have. The reason they have not, they say, is that the warming is being masked by sun-blocking smoke, dust and other polluting particles put into the air by human activity. But they warn that in future this protection will lessen due to controls on pollution. Their best guess is that, as the mask is removed, temperatures will warm by at least 6°C by 2100. That is substantially above the current predictions of 1.5 to 4.5°C. âSuch an enormous increase would be comparable to the temperature change from the previous ice age to the present,â says one of the researchers, Meinrat Andreae of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. âIt is so far outside the range covered by our experience and scientific understanding that we cannot with any confidence predict the consequences for the Earth.â The calculations assume a doubling of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels. Andreae and his two British colleagues, Peter Cox and Chris Jones, are leading authors from the UNâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These new findings are likely to be reflected in the IPCCâs next assessment of climate change science, scheduled for 2007. The cooling effect of aerosols has been known for some time. But, says Andreae, past assessments have underestimated its influence. Because of this, they have also underestimated the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the warming effect of greenhouse gases. The new modelling study finds that only high estimates of both aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming can explain the history of global temperatures over the past 50 years. The problem for future climate is that the cooling aerosols only stay in the air for a few days, whereas the warming gases stick around for decades or centuries. So while the cooling effect is unlikely to grow much, the gases will accumulate and have an ever-bigger effect on global temperature. The world, says Andreae, is âdriving the climate with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake. When the brake comes off, it makes a hell of a difference". The authors have added another previously unrecognised element to the temperature forecast - the effect of all this on nature and the natural carbon cycle. Natural ecosystems are currently absorbing up to half of the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere. Most climate models assume this will continue. But there is growing evidence that from about 2050, soils and forests will stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it instead. The authors calculate that this switch in the natural carbon cycle could accelerate the build-up of CO2 in the air by more than 50%, producing a total warming that âmay be as high as 10°Câ by 2100. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #13 "Urinating may trigger global warming" Geez, B-A-R, exactly how much beer did you drink? ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-30 23:13 |
| #12 IOW, what the best of the best are trying hard NOT to say, until the next Research Grant allocations or election year PC, is that the OZONE HOLE is the earth's natural release method for greenhouse gases. Iff the pollutants were stratificallly "masking" global warming as is claimed, then the earth's land masses should be hotter than usual due to heat being reflected back, not the status quo, or cool or cooler. SUB-IOW, ITS DUBYA AND AMERICA'S FAULT THE FAILED LEFT CAN'T CONTROL AND REGULATE THE SUN AND OUTER SPACE AT WILL - you know, being an Anti-God God, or at least Darth Vader/Sidious vv the Force!? Prob NOT Madonna fans either! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-06-30 23:07 |
| #11 Jackal is right but only for the land. the real carbon sinks are the oceans where organic matter falls to the ocean floor where it is locked up in forming sediments. I recall the limiting factor on plankton growth which drives the whole ocean biosphere is minerals that originate from the land. So introducing dust into the atmosphere that falls into the oceans will stimulate plankton growth and hence capture more carbon. BTW, this should be easy to test. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-30 18:14 |
| #10 "But there is growing evidence that from about 2050, soils and forests will stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it instead." I don't know what their "reasoning" is, but Old Growth forests generally produce nearly as much CO2 as they use. It's the new, young, growing forests (and of course algae) that are the big CO2 sinks. So, the greenies running around trying to protect old-growth forests in the West (which proves they're really communists, as they protect redwoods) are causing global warming (if you believe rising CO2 is a cause, not an effect). If you really wanted to reduce CO2, you need to log old forests (don't let them burn) and replant seedlings. Basically, the privately-owned tree farms in the southeast are model to use. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-06-30 17:26 |
| #9 If it will not hobble the American economy what good is such a solution? |
| Posted by: J. Chirac 2005-06-30 16:09 |
| #8 Sounds like BS to me Sure, but if you repeat it often enough, you can get your followers to blame it on GWB, whatever it is. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-30 11:06 |
| #7 I think what they are saying is that the biomass being eaten by termites and othe animals will result in a release of CO2 greater than that absorbed by the growing plants. Sounds like BS to me. That sure is a lot of termite farts. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-30 10:52 |
| #6 "But there is growing evidence that from about 2050, soils and forests will stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it instead." Say *what*? I know they don't mean to imply that plants are going to start breathing out CO2, but it sure as hell reads that way. Unless this is their roundabout way of predicting some sort of global forest fire. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-06-30 10:37 |
| #5 Clearing smoke may trigger global warming rise How about: Watching TV may trigger global warming or, Urinating may trigger global warming |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-30 10:13 |
| #4 Thanks, tu! The new modelling study finds that only high estimates of both aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming can explain the history of global temperatures over the past 50 years. Ah, yes, the infamous model showing ONLY 1 cause. No mention of this even potentially being related to natural warm/cool cycles in the earth; no, we can't have that result from our model, that would keep us from getting more $ for more models. The authors have added another previously unrecognised element to the temperature forecast - the effect of all this on nature and the natural carbon cycle. I've always just assumed that if there is truly global warming, then there's more arable land, and, thus, more trees/forests in areas that were previously frozen or tundra. But, what do I know, it only makes logical sense. Kind of like yesterday's report that the icecaps melting results in seawater that's less salty! Imagine that! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-30 09:23 |
| #3 Heading out for a smoke. Gotta help save the planet! You can thank me later... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-06-30 08:45 |
| #2 Damn! Everything leads to global warming. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-06-30 08:22 |
| #1 Raising dust, you say? Is there a pot of money attached to it, or can we tax countries based on the mileage of dirt roads or something? That does sound much easier than measuring sheep and cow farts, I do say! Brown, |
| Posted by: .SecGen, Leech-o-Matic 2005-06-30 07:57 |