Global warming
1998:
"Ecosystems in North America are absorbing carbon dioxide at a rate that is greater than expected, according to findings by a team of scientists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The study, which its authors said was subject to confirmation, may mean that land-based carbon-absorbing zones could play a greater role than expected in managing greenhouse warming of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is one of several gases implicated in greenhouse warming."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/96_99/19406.html
2001:
"Despite the fact that land sinks help remove carbon from the atmosphere, the U.S. continues to emit more carbon than it removes. In 1990, for example, the country released 1.337 billion tons from fossil fuel emissions, making it a net source of between two-thirds and 1 billion tons of carbon per year.
However, America's forests won't soak up the greenhouse gases forever. The sink will begin to diminish and eventually disappear as the forests reach maturity. Even if the country could slow fossil fuel consumption and maintain current levels of carbon dioxide emissions, says Pacala, the U.S. net contribution to atmospheric accumulation would continue to rise as the benefit of the sink goes away."
http://www.unh.edu/news/news_releases/2001/june/sk_20010621carbon.html
Posts
4 comments:
So let's see, ACCORDING TO BOTH ARTICLES we are still a NET ABSORBER OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
Although the second article TRIES to say that the North American Carbon Sink "won't last forever". Yet fails to note that forest size and diversification has been increasing this century with with abolishment of slash and burn forestry in this country and in Canada.
While the Chicken Littles in the second article hope to try and demonstrate that "one day" our sink will be gone, the facts go against them. We're increase our arable land and agricultural efficiency in the US and increasing the size of our carbon sink every year.
Nice try tho'
--Jason
Sounds a bit like "Nyahhh, nyahhh, nyahhh..." At worst, my friend, it seems like a tie.
Quite an assumption at the end there. "We're increase our arable land and agricultural efficiency in the US and increasing the size of our carbon sink every year."
Until we don't.
Science, Vol 290, Issue 5490, 291-296 , 13 October 2000
The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System
P. Falkowski,1* R. J. Scholes,2* E. Boyle,3 J. Canadell,4 D. Canfield,5 J. Elser,6 N. Gruber,7 K. Hibbard,8 P. Högberg,9 S. Linder,10 F. T. Mackenzie,11 B. Moore III,8 T. Pedersen,12 Y. Rosenthal,1 S. Seitzinger,1 V. Smetacek,13 W. Steffen14
Motivated by the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities since the Industrial Revolution, several international scientific research programs have analyzed the role of individual components of the Earth system in the global carbon cycle. Our knowledge of the carbon cycle within the oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and the atmosphere is sufficiently extensive to permit us to conclude that although natural processes can potentially slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, there is no natural "savior" waiting to assimilate all the anthropogenically produced CO2 in the coming century. Our knowledge is insufficient to describe the interactions between the components of the Earth system and the relationship between the carbon cycle and other biogeochemical and climatological processes. Overcoming this limitation requires a systems approach.
*********************************
Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
James Hansen,1,2* Larissa Nazarenko,1,2 Reto Ruedy,3 Makiko Sato,1,2 Josh Willis,4 Anthony Del Genio,1,5 Dorothy Koch,1,2 Andrew Lacis,1,5 Ken Lo,3 Surabi Menon,6 Tica Novakov,6 Judith Perlwitz,1,2 Gary Russell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1,2 Nicholas Tausnev3
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.
*****************************
Hey there Grif, here's a reality check for you.
Everything we do, we do, "until we don't."
Your cited authors refer to the decreasing carbon absorbsion levels of "maturing forests", yet lets take a look at this from a forestry perspective. Contrary to popular belief, "forests" in the United States are GROWING in size as replanting of cut trees continues (for every tree cut, we plant 6+ depending on the company). Also every year, the square acreage of "tree farms" increases and as the government increases the size of BLM holdings and transfers suitable holdings to the US Forest Service, our forest managers are increasing the size and diversity of our forest reserves.
Also around the world, Western agronimists are increasing yeilds, irrigating land and increasing flora cultivation in areas where previously plantings were untenable.
So if mine sounds like Nyah Nyah??
What would you characterize your "until we don't" statement?
So while we are a "NET SOURCE" we're also a removing greenhouse gases, and a "NET ABSORBER" as what we absorb is more than what we produce.
Trying to base an argument on "one day maybe we won't" isn't really a firm foundation.
Oh yeah, lets not forget all those people that are taking it up on their own initiative to plant trees, grow houseplants and manage personal gardens, and then of course all those lawns in rapidly growing suburbia also add to our absorbtion.
So lets put it where it's due, if you are convinced that global warming is real, start harping on those nations that are not net absorbers. Oh wait, in your world those guys are OK, right??? Because they subscribe to Kyoto and it doesn't really matter that NOT ONE signatory has met their target levels of production and none of them are working toward absorbsion goals.
But Ironically, Bush's environmental plan doesn't just focus on emissions, but also addresses increasing the absorbsion.
--Jason
I thought you said you weren't responding to me because I was that righty fundy libertarian gremlin anomoly??
I gave you a second chance. I'm done now.
Post a Comment