[OPE-L] Review of the year: Global warming

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 09:29:41 EST


Review of the year: Global warming

Our worst fears are exceeded by reality

By Steve Connor
Published: 29 December 2006

It has been a hot year. The average temperature in Britain for 2006
was higher than at any time since records began in 1659. Globally, it
looks set to be the sixth hottest year on record. The signs during
the past 12 months have been all around us. Little winter snow in the
Alpine ski resorts, continuing droughts in Africa, mountain glaciers
melting faster than at any time in the past 5,000 years, disappearing
Arctic sea ice, Greenland's ice sheet sliding into the sea. Oh, and a
hosepipe ban in southern England.

You could be forgiven for thinking that you've heard it all before.
You may think it's time to turn the page and read something else. But
you'd be wrong. 2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year
in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And
the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback.

During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the
most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the
optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate
feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the
causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or
they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists
looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things
worse - a lot worse.

Next year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
will publish its fourth assessment on the scale of the future
problems facing humanity. Its last assessment, published in 2001, had
little to say on the subject of climate feedbacks, partly because, at
that time, they were such an unknown quantity. This year, scientists
came to learn a little more about them, and they didn't like what
they learnt.

During the past two decades, the IPCC has tended to regard the
Earth's climate as something that will change gradually and smoothly,
as carbon dioxide and global temperatures continue their lock-step
rise. But there is a growing consensus among many climate scientists
that this may be giving a false sense of security. They fear that
feedback reactions may begin to kick in and suddenly tip the climate
beyond a critical threshold from which it cannot easily recover.

Climate feedbacks could turn the Earth into a very different planet
over a dramatically short period of time. It has happened in the
past, scientists say, and it could easily happen in the future given
the unprecedented scale of the environmental changes caused by man.

There are two types of feedback that can play a role in the future
direction of the Earth's climate. The first is a "negative" feedback,
which is largely good for us, because it works against things getting
worse. The classic example of a negative feedback is the fertilising
effect of carbon dioxide. As concentrations rise, then so does the
amount of carbon absorbed by the higher growth rate of plants. The
result is a negative feedback that tends to check rising levels of
carbon dioxide.

A "positive" feedback makes things worse by adding to the existing
problem. It brings about a vicious circle, in which a rise in carbon
dioxide or global temperatures causes some change in the climate
system which, in turn, leads to further rises in carbon dioxide or

A classic example of a positive feedback is the melting sea ice of
the Arctic. As temperatures rise, the ice floating on the Arctic sea
melts, exposing dark ocean where once there was white ice that
reflected sunlight, and heat, back into space. The newly revealed
dark ocean absorbs more sunlight and heats up, causing more ice to
melt, and so reinforcing the positive-feedback cycle.

But even this simple description belies the true complexity of life
on Earth. In fact, there is a negative feedback at work as well with
Arctic sea ice, which insulates the underlying ocean and keeps it
warmer during the cold, dark northern winters. However, on balance,
it is the positive feedback that dominates here, as it does in
several other instances investigated by scientists in 2006.

"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

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."

Professor Lindsay likens the positive feedback in the Arctic to a
ball that has begun to roll down a slope, gathering momentum and
speed as it goes. In order to reverse the direction of movement, the
ball has to be pushed back up the slope. But how? "Perhaps a cooling
period could reverse the situation," he says. "But with global
warming, temperatures are only bound to rise."

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.

So the message is clear: frozen peat bogs that turn into
heat-absorbing lakes release methane, which means a stronger
greenhouse effect and higher temperatures, leading to more permafrost
melting. The cycle was clearly documented in 2006 but just how strong
this positive feedback turns out to be has yet to be fully determined.

Another study in 2006 looked at perhaps the most important climate
feedback there is. Yet it went unreported - so listen up. The Earth
has been a very accommodating planet. During the past 200 years, it
has absorbed more than half of all man-made emissions of carbon
dioxide through natural carbon "sinks", mostly in the ocean but also
on land. The rest of the emissions have been left in the air to
aggravate the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, so raising global
average temperatures.

But what if something were to interfere with these very useful carbon
"sinks"? Can we forever rely on them to remain sinks, or could they
turn into dangerous sources of atmospheric carbon? A huge
international team of climatologists asked these questions in a
little-known study published in the July issue of the Journal of
Climate. The conclusion makes depressing reading.

The scientists investigated what would happen if they tinkered with
11 of the world's biggest computer models of the complex
climate-carbon cycle. They wanted to simulate what would happen to
the carbon sinks on the land and the ocean for each model as the
world gets warmer. All the models agreed that as the world heated up,
the ability of the land and the oceans to keep on absorbing carbon as
efficiently as they have in the past 200 years gets appreciably worse.

In other words, we cannot rely on planet Earth to be so accommodating
in terms of mopping up half of our carbon pollution. But could
something even worse happen? Could these carbon sinks turn into
carbon sources? The answer is yes. Many models suggest that the
terrestrial biosphere could become a net carbon producer by the mid
21st century. Signs are that it is already happening in some parts of
the world.

Guy Kirk of the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield
University found that the soil of Britain is releasing more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere than a quarter of a century ago because
increasing temperatures are speeding up the rate of organic decay.
"It's a feedback loop," says Professor Kirk. "The warmer it gets, the
faster it is happening." In fact, he estimates that since 1978,
Britain's soil has released on average an extra 13 million tons of
carbon dioxide a year, which is more than the 12.7 million tons a
year Britain saved by cleaning up its industrial emissions.

The outlook does not look any better out at sea. The important carbon
sinks of the ocean are also suffering from feedback. As more carbon
dioxide dissolves in seawater to form carbonic acid, the acidity of
the ocean increases - the rate is 100 times faster than at any time
for millions of years.

There is a physical feedback - it is just harder for more carbon
dioxide to dissolve in acid water - as well as a biological feedback.
Tiny organisms called coccolithophores use dissolved carbon to make
their shells, but acidic seas make this more difficult. This blocks
an important biological pump that pushes carbon to a long-term store
on the seabed - which is what happens when billions of tiny shells
sink to the depths as coccolithophores die.

Yet another ocean feedback was monitored in 2006, this time involving
phytoplankton, the tiny microscopic plants of the sea that form the
basis of the entire marine food chain. Nasa satellites showed earlier
this month that phytoplankton - which absorb carbon dioxide - are
finding it harder to live in the more stratified layers of the warmer
ocean, which restrict the mixing of vital nutrients. Since 2000, when
the sea surface temperatures began to rise more noticeably, the
photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton have decreased in some
ocean regions by 30 per cent.

"As climate warms, phytoplankton production goes down, but this also
means that carbon dioxide uptake by ocean plants will decrease," says
Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University. "That would allow
carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere, making
the problem worse." Some climate scientists believe that the risk of
dangerous feedbacks tipping the Earth's climate system beyond a
threshold is so great that there should be wider recognition of what
they term "abrupt changes". The point is, they say, it has happened
repeatedly in the past. It happened 55 million years ago when a
trillion tons of methane were suddenly and mysteriously released from
frozen stores on the seabed, causing global temperatures to soar 10C,
and a mass extinction of species.

It happened 14,500 years ago when ice sheets catastrophically
collapsed into the ocean causing sea levels to rise by 20 metres in
just 400 years. And it happened 6,500 years ago when the Sahara was
suddenly turned from lush vegetation to dry desert.

Scientists say that what is happening now to the planet in terms of
carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures is just as abrupt as
anything that has occurred in the past. "What we are doing now to the
Earth is unprecedented," says Professor Rapley of the British
Antarctic Survey, "so we cannot rule out the possibility that we are
doing something that will create a strong positive feedback, which
will push the Earth into a domain where things will happen that have
never happened before."

It is a sobering thought as 2006 draws to a close, and one that must
be in the minds of all the IPCC scientists preparing next year's
Fourth Assessment Report on climate change.


The single most momentous environmental image of 2006 was a holiday
snap. Of sorts. It showed typical European package tourists on a nice
sandy beach in Tenerife. Until a few minutes before the picture was
taken, on August 3 on Tejita beach in Granadilla, it had been a day
of utter normality for these tourists. Then something very different
erupted on to the scene.

 From the sea came a boat. Out of it fell pitiful figures - exhausted,
terrified, dehydrated, starving. They were African migrants who, out
of desperation, had risked the long voyage from the African coast to
the Canaries; for the Canaries are part of Europe, a place of hope
and opportunity. What did the tourists do? They did the decent thing.
They rushed to the aid of fellow men and women.

But will they offer such a welcome when the boat people are not just
a boatload, but a whole country- or region-load? For that is coming.
As climate change takes hold this century, agriculture may fail in
some of the poorest and most densely populated parts of the world.

Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former Ambassador to the UN, who is
one of the most far-sighted of environmental commentators, pointed
out as long ago as 1990 that global warming is likely to create
environmental refugees in the hundreds of millions. We have paid
little attention to his warning.

But if you look at the picture taken on Tejita beach, you can see
something even more dramatic than the fact that the ordinary European
holidaymaker has a lifestyle most Africans can only dream of. You can
see the future, starting to happen.

Michael McCarthy

            Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST