Global Warming = Climate Crisis
Submitted by Real Science on April 28, 2006 - 11:40am.
Real Science
Welcome to CCN's first of a four-part Special "Real Science" Blog Series on global warming.
“Global Warming” is the hottest environmental issue these days. But lots of people are skeptical that it’s even happening, and many of those who believe that it’s real, still doubt that it’s caused by mankind, or that we can do anything about it. It’s certainly fair to ask any number of questions, including, “What’s the evidence for global warming?” “Is it caused by human activity?” “How bad could it be?” “Can anything be done about it?” In our four-part series, we’ll take up each of these questions and do our best to address them. In this first installment, we’ll look at the evidence for global warming.
A. Is Global Warming Real?
Well, to begin with, the phrase “global warming” doesn’t refer to temperature in any one particular place at any one particular time. Instead, it refers to the average temperature over the entire globe, over many years.
The thermometer was invented in 1612 but didn’t see widespread use over much of the globe until the late 1800s. Scientists have averaged temperatures worldwide to estimate global mean temperature from 1880 to the present. What they usually study isn’t the temperature itself, but the temperature anomaly: that’s just the difference between the global average temperature at a given time and its long-term average. Here’s the global average temperature anomaly for each year from 1880 to 2005 (each dot is the average over one year, the red line is a 5-year “running average”):
It’s quite clear that averaged over the globe, temperatures have been going up. The ten hottest years ever recorded all happened in the last 14 years; hottest of all was 2005.
B. Where has recent warming been greatest?
This map shows the net temperature change (in °C) in different parts of the world from the 1961-1990 average to the present day; essentially, it shows where global warming has had the most impact world-wide. Only a few areas (mostly in the southern oceans and Antarctica) have shown no temperature increase. It also shows that the northern hemisphere has warmed more than the southern, that land has warmed more than ocean, and that the arctic has warmed most of all.
C. Is modern warming really different from natural changes in the past?
Of course climate will show natural variations; 125 years of temperature records isn’t enough to demonstrate that the recent warming isn’t just another natural fluctuation.
There are very few very long temperature records; longest of all, and with the highest quality data by far, is the Central England Temperature time series:
Each point is the average central England temperature over a 10-year period. The last two points show that, in this location at least, recent decades have been significantly warmer than at any time in at least the last 3½ centuries.
Even so, on a global scale, thermometers alone can’t tell us much about long-term behavior. That’s simply because temperature records don’t go back far enough in time over enough area; one location (central England) isn’t enough to tell us about global averages.
Therefore, scientists use other, indirect data, which are called proxy data. Proxy data are measurements that don’t tell the temperature but give us strong clues about it. For example, if you wanted to study height, but couldn’t measure it directly (because all your subjects lived 5,000 years ago), then you can get clues about it by studying shoe size. It’s not a perfect proxy, but it’s pretty good; in general, the larger the shoe, the taller the person. There are many different proxy data for past temperature:
- Tree rings: their width and density depend on temperature during the growing season and on the length of the growing season – which in turn depends on temperature.
- Corals: give vital clues about sea temperature.
- Borehole data: tell us how heat from earth’s surface has diffused into the ground and can be used to reconstruct past temperatures.
- Fossils: tell us which organisms populated which parts of earth in the past – if the local species changes from polar bears to crocodiles, the temperature has gotten hotter.
- Ice cores: when ice accumulates in polar regions or glaciers, it traps bubbles of air, giving us a sample of the atmosphere from times past. We can extract the samples from ice cores; their chemical composition gives yet more clues to temperature.
The natural thing to do would be to combine all the available proxy data into a “best estimate” of past average temperature. Here’s the result from the landmark study of this kind:
This is the most famous graph in climate research, and has been dubbed the hockey stick. It’s important to be aware that the hockey stick doesn’t just show in this one study; this has been done many times since, by many different researchers. The small details differ, but the overall behavior is the same: earth’s climate showed fluctuations in the past but relatively large warming quite recently. Climate today is warmer than at any time in the last 1,000 years.
In fact, the method has been extended further into the past. Here’s the northern hemisphere average temperature for the last 2,000 years (each point is the average over a 20-year period):
The increased temperature shown by the last data point (the last 20 years) isn’t just higher than any other – it’s quite remarkably so.
D. The conclusion:
Not only is the warming of earth’s climate real, it’s unprecedented for at least 2,000 years. Furthermore, one of the most dangerous aspects is that present warming is much more rapid than in the past.
Climate does change naturally, and species adapt to that change. But when change happens too quickly, there’s insufficient time for living things to accommodate that change. There’s already considerable evidence that many species are having trouble adapting to the warming; worldwide, extinctions are occurring at an alarming rate.
E. Information and misinformation
Some very powerful forces – mostly tied to the fossil fuel industry – have worked very hard to cloud the issue, disputing every piece of evidence (some have even claimed that thermometer readings can’t be trusted!). Much effort has been expended trying to “debunk” the hockey stick. But climate scientists have very effectively debunked the debunkers. You can expect to hear a lot of mis-information on this issue to generate controversy. But among climate scientists, there’s no real controversy. The consensus is overwhelming: global warming is real, and very dangerous.
F. General Clark’s Activities
General Clark has taken an active stand on the global warming issue, putting it at the forefront of his policy recommendations and making it prominent among his supporters. He has emphasized its importance to Americans by noting that it’s not just an environmental issue, it’s a national security issue (as he discussed when he was a panel member for the global warming portion of Bill Clinton’s “Global Initiative” this past fall). He’s a prominent signer of the online “stop global warming” petition. In fact, if you visit the petition’s online supporters page, you’ll find that of all political figures who have joined that effort, the one who has brought more signatures onboard than any other is none other than Gen. Wesley K. Clark, U.S. Army (ret.). Through his ClarkCasts, he has undertaken not just one, but a series of webcasts on this topic.
G. Web Resources:
You can find a lot of additional information on the internet. But be aware that the web is also a primary source of misinformation on the subject.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes their reports available on the web:
- One of the best sources of scientific information is the website RealClimate, maintained by working climate scientists:
- The Union of Concerned Scientists features valuable educational resources at their website, including various interactive multimedia features and advocacy petitions, which help enhance and empower its visitors on the issues of global warming:
Come Back! :) Next week, Part II will focus on the evidence for mankind's part in global warming!
Great job, team!
I don't see you giving yourselves any credit however -- you should list your names (User names fine) somewhere as contributors so we can recognize your good work.
I can't believe how fast you all put this together... very iimpressive! Thanks again!
Altogether, your Real Science team members include:
- archimedes
- LindaG
- Judy in NJ
- Knightrider
Big kudos to our resident Global Climate Scientist geek, "archimedes", who is the principle author of this piece.
Let's also give kudos to CCN's Blog Series Committee . "Icantbelieve..." designed our official 4-Star Real Science banner. ;)
Note: Please ask questions, share comments and provoke discussion and dialogue with each other, especially on the graphs, figures and content that we present.
-------------------
sending the link to everyone I know will be interested in this topic and other science topics, hoping they'll want to blog with us on this topic!!
That's what will make this take off the ground, if we share the link and bring readers over.
I'm swelling with pride! Go GEEKS!!! : )
And yes, rich and ICB have done so much to make it all come together -- I LOVE the Red Banner! Each Series entry will be distinguished by the Red top Banner with an icon to designate the topic/ category. Other teams might want to start thinking of your logo now...
Wheeee! Launch days are so celebratory!!!
I want a deficit clock to mirror the one in NYC, however says it's probably off due to cooked books by about a trillion. He thinks it's probably already up to $9 trillion, so we might have to have a +/- $1 trillion posted to satisfy the forensic economists as Krugman called it this week. It's economy CSI!
Like that! Oh How I heart the Krug Man...
Yes, definitely a deficit clock as the header.... westcott is probably reading this now and cursing me! LOL.
I have to go now, carry on.
Already late for work and have a really long day ahead of me.
Maybe ... no, can't promise. But if there are any compatible issue diaries up over there, we can always go to them and share the link, invite others to come and visit our new Science series.
Sorry... : (
and subscribed to read behind the firewall just so I can read Krugman...and MODO...and Kristoff....and Herbert....Friedman has been on a roll about our foreign fuel addiction and other global issues, not being flattering to BushCo. He's such a globalization optomist, but not this week.
Actually, Westcott drew the coolest part of the banner.
I'm soooo happy. This is better than I ever imagined our series blogging would be. Way to go Real Science Team!!!
The Wizard Westcott
Is one because--
Because, because, because, because, becaaauuuuuuse--
Because of the wonderful things he does! ; )
Proud of you all! Kudos!
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
Good job, Real Science Team!
Clear and informative, with just the right level of detail for laypeople.
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
A very promising technology for the future is fuel cell hydrogen powered vehicles. California is leading the way in this technology. I recently visited a firm in CT that produces hydrogen from water electrolysis and the people I spoke with were most impressed with the initiates for clean energy in CA, and even sang the praises of the CA governor. It saddens me a bit that the Dems haven't embraced clean energy technology. A case in point is Sen. Kennedy's opposition to the Cape Wind energy project off Cape Cod. Apparently, Kennedy teamed up with Stevens of Alaska to essentially kill the prospects of off-shore wind parks in the US. I understand Stevens' motivation, he wants ANWR opened.
This is exactly what we're hoping for - a place to promote stimulating discussion about these topics...
Thanks for your contribution, Believe...
Keep 'em comin', folks!
It's important to note the difference in these two topics. The energy to produce hydrogen from water still has to come from somewhere.
I'm really psyched about the future of this series. I want to hear about the evidence that global warming is coming from other than an increased global population breathing and what the real alternatives for energy are.
Can we do it with wind or solar power? Or indirect solar power through something like ethanol? And where is all the corn going to be grown? Where is the ethanol for the MTBE switchover coming from this year? Does anyone know? I guess I should go look that up...
read that it can be done with wind power, whatever we can use to produce electricity. I suppose water power as used to be done to produce electricity in days of yore.
That's my understanding as well. The clean energy hydrogen company I visited powers the hydrogen generation with wind and other clean energy sources. Clean technology (i.e., water electrolysis) generated by clean energy (i.e., wind, etc.) to create fuel (i.e., hydrogen) to power clean technology (hydrogen-powered cars, etc., backup for variable clean energy generation like wind, solar).
have lived off Cape Cod for ages and don't want to see turbines in the ocean. So why not promote wind farms in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, not to mention parts of Texas? You know the song...Oooooklahoma where the wind comes whistling down the plains. We all have that wind in our parts, noting to block it from Canada to the Gulf and visa versa. We have an entire meaning for "bad hair day" in Kansas. Wind blown is just a state of being:(
...where I did a seven-year sentence:
There's nothing between the North Pole and Wichita except for a barbed wire fence, and it blew down.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I've heard that you lose a lot of electricity when it's transmitted over distance. Comments, science people?
There's an interesting article in the September 2005 issue of Scientific American about efficiency that covers that topic and many other inefficiencies that could be addressed.
I'm not sure if that is a major issue. Just like the "high tension" wires you see everywhere they route the energy "electricity" that is produced ithrough large step-up transformers that step it up to a very high voltage. In doing this it trades off high current for high voltage. On the other end step-down transformers convert the high voltage back to a low voltage with high current. Current is the factor that causes power loss due to the resistence in the many miles of transmission lines.
I think that most proposed off shore wind farms can be seen from the shore. But they don't need to be off shore. The wind farm in New Jersey was built at a waste treatment plant. Would anyone seriously claim that windmills spoil the view of a sewage plant?
I don't find windmills ugly in the first place. The New Jersey windfarm has a web cam if you'd like to have a look for yourself. There is wind this morning so the windmills are doing there thing.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?
I'll find a link and post it but there are issues of average winds speed and the percentage of a day when the wind dblows and does not blow. With these large windmills there is a thresold wind speed that must be reached. I've forgotten the numbers but it is around 14-16mph. If you have a site that consistenly meets or exceeds that thresold hold speed the potential wind energy is much greater. Offshore wind characteristic are much more favorable then land conditions and hold much more potential energy. According to tests at that Nantuckett Sound site, it has adequate wind speed about 84% of the time. During the 16% when the wind is not strong enough to produce sufficent power , conventional power stations would fill in for the demand.
Also our coastal areas have dense population and virtually no unused land to build a land based station.
Also, I don't think they are talking about building the 10 miles out yet. The have to build supports on the ocean bottom and the depth 10 miles out are much greater then at that Nantuckett Sound site.
The big thing in my mind is the back handed way they are trying to kill the project and the impact it would have on other sites. This company would be out millions and a huge renewable energy source would suffer a major setback anywhere one was proposed.
In fairness I think the choice of location hurt the effort. The people who live down there and have multi-million dollar properties have their concerns and you have what is essential a private company that is developing this windfarm on the water in an area that has been available for public use since the land was settled. The oppositon argues that the comapny in question has manuevered itself into a no-bid situation etc.. On the other hand they have invested million of dollars in this and have paid for numerous environmental impact studies and cleared many expensive hurdles. It would be a bit on fair to let some other company walk in and under cut them after years of effort.
I'm all for it but I live 75 miles west of there and wouldn't see 1 kilowatt of the power generated.
Offshore Windfarms for Texas?
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Paving the way for Texas to be home to the first wind farm along the U.S. coast, the state has leased an 11,000-acre swath of the Gulf of Mexico, seven miles off Galveston Island, for gigantic wind turbines that could eventually power 40,000 homes, the Houston Chronicle reported. The lease, the first granted by any government agency in the nation for an offshore wind project, marks a new era of pollution-free energy production for the Gulf, which for decades has been the site of thousands of wells and platforms tapping the Earth's depths for air-polluting natural gas and oil. It also signals the migration of Texas' wind industry — which ranks second in the nation behind California in kilowatt hours produced by breezes and gusts — from the Panhandle and western parts of the state to the coast, where winds are more consistent during peak daylight hours and large population centers such as Houston aren't as far away...
http://www.marinelink.com/Story/ShowStory.aspx?StoryID=200628
In Texas, we have quite an emerging wind-for-energy industry, currently mostly in West Texas and the Panhandle...
As for the Gulf... hmmmm... I wonder what would happen to such turbines during hurricane season. (I have strange images of the cities along the Gulf being all lit-up.)
I recently watched a program that features actual concept homes of the future. The home's electrical system was entirely self-reliant, and driven with solar power panels and a H+ technology electrolysis system, which stored and fed the homes low wattage lighting needs (using special bulbs). It's building materials obviously had high energy efficiency. In other words, with 0 coal-powered homes, and 0 greenhouse gas emmissions.
It sems to me that hydrogen cars will add to global warming unless the electricity to produce the hydrogen comes from nuclear sources.
Hydrogen fuel can easily be extracted from water using any type of electricity including electricity from highly efficient types of renewable energy. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles burn hydrogen directly, and produce pure water vapor exhaust.
Hydrogen fueled engines are nearly twice as efficient as traditional combustion engines, which only have an efficiency of 15-25%.
Interesting to think about the effect of all of our relatively recent fossil fuel burning innovations and how important the 100 year vision really is.
This is really nice work Real Science team. :)
The red part of the hockey stick--that's the instrumental data? What's the 1998 reconstructed value? If you follow the black line (40 year average of reconstructed data--I think), it looks like there was a huge rise from 1900-1950, then a dip, and a rise again. What's that about? And then if one assumes the black line will follow the red instrumental data, then it looks like it'll look like the same kind of increase as from 1900-1950. So what is that wiggle about?
Wondered if the WWI and WWII activities might have contributed. . .
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
that very subject. I watched a documentary that stated that in time of war the impact is increased by a lot. So far I have not found the source(s) for this.
Of course figure in the Industrial Revolution, more cars and more people and more chemical attacks on our planet.... goes on and on, eh?
Great minds......... LOL!
Wesley Clark, the Voice of Reason!
If true, I guess we'd have Global WARming effect. . .
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
Many reasons to only have wars as the "last, last, last resort." :(
Wesley Clark, the Voice of Reason!
The "1998 reconstructed value" is just the value in 1998 (put there for reference by the authors). I think they wanted to emphasize how much hotter 1998 was than the last 1,000 years.
There was a rise in temperature from 1900-1950 (to be more precise, from about 1915 to 1945). Best opinion (this was discussed not too long ago on RealClimate) is that about half of that warming was due to man-made greenhouse gases, the other half to natural forcings.
There is a "dip" which follows (a very slight dip -- more of a levelling off, actually) from about 1945 to 1975. Best opinion on the cause of the dip is that "sulfate aerosols" (the kind of stuff that causes acid rain) exerted a global cooling effect, which cancelled out the global warming from man-made CO2.
From 1975 to the present we've seen more warming, and the rate appears to be higher than early in the century, although the difference is not yet statistically significant. Sulfate aerosol cooling ceased due to environmental actions (in the U.S. and other countries), so the full effect of greenhouse gases is being observed.
A quick comment.
Recently, conservative columnists and global warming contrarians; George Wills of WaPo and Robert Novak of the Chicago Times, wrote Op/Ed pieces against the science.
In fact, global warming contrarians often justify their arguments around periodic variations and anomalies, in order to interject uncertainties on its scientific conclusions. But, it's another form of "cherry-picking" the science. Choosing instead, to pick individual studies or periodic anomalies, rather than the consensus of the scientific findings and the "bigger picture."
For example, if you look at the first graph on temperature anomalies, you will see that although there's a great deal of variation between the certain years, such as you see between 1940 through late 1950s, the overall trend conclusively indicates a dramatic rise in temperature anomalies, since these measurements began.
There is no controversy over global warming. Contrarians fail to look at the "bigger picture."
--------------------
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)
I look at that hockey stick and think, "It can't be THAT bad." I mean, I like to think I'm honestly skeptical. Why the jump from 1900-1950 and then the wiggle? What is that about? Is it really as dire as that hockey stick seems to indicate or are we missing something? Is there any chance we're comparing apples and oranges when we switch over from proxy data to actual data? And if you look at the northern hemisphere only data, it kind of looks like (without that last OMG point) that it's a natural flucctuation--it maxed out, came back down and was about to max out again. And now we've got this one point that's like holy sh*t!!! But if you look at the world wide data, the holy sh*t the slope's getting extreme and we're doomed point seems to have started 100 years ago, not 20 years ago. That's weird. I'd like to understand more about that.
I'd like to hear honest skepticism from real scientists (or how they've worked through their honest skepticism and gotten to beyond it, which you guys have done a lot with here!) What I don't want to hear is some know-nothing paid-to-be-conservative trying to spin it into nothing.
I look at that hockey stick and think, "It can't be THAT bad."
Unfortunately, it *is* that bad. That's why most climate scientists are trying to raise the alarm. That's why Lord May, in his address when retiring as president of the Royal Society (Great Britan's national science academy) referred to global warming as a greater threat than "weapons of mass destruction." That's why James Lovelock (originator of the "Gaia" hypothesis) warns that we've already gone past the point of no return. And -- that's why conservative think tanks have expended so much effort attempting to discredit the "hockey stick."
I'd like to hear honest skepticism from real scientists (or how they've worked through their honest skepticism and gotten to beyond it...
That's what the RealClimate website is all about. If you really want more, from leading experts in the field (including, I think, a couple of the authors of the hockey stick), you'll find it there. Worth reading!
Honestly, we didn't mean to frighten people. But just as honestly -- maybe I'm a little glad we did.
so I'll give it a try.
Some of your questions are addressed in my previous comments (like "the wiggle")
Is there any chance we're comparing apples and oranges when we switch over from proxy data to actual data?
There's a chance, but that chance is so small it's just about negligible. Two factors make it so unlikely that the proxy data are misleading us: 1. there's a very strong, demonstrable correlation between all of the proxies and temperature; 2. the reconstruction doesn't depend on just one proxy, but is a "best combination" of many. The chance that a single proxy indicator will mislead us is very small. The chance that 5 independent proxy indicators will all mislead us, is "very small" to the fifth power (it's actually a bit more complicated than this, but that encapsulates the essential idea).
And if you look at the northern hemisphere only data, it kind of looks like (without that last OMG point) that it's a natural flucctuation--it maxed out, came back down and was about to max out again. And now we've got this one point that's like holy sh*t!!! But if you look at the world wide data, the holy sh*t the slope's getting extreme and we're doomed point seems to have started 100 years ago, not 20 years ago. That's weird. I'd like to understand more about that.
The two results come from different researchers, using different sets of data, so there are bound to be differences. But the differences are actually rather small, especially when compared to the similarities. Part of the reason the second graph looks so different is that it's plotted on a different scale (2000 years as opposed to 1000 years) and in a different way. Plotting 20-year averages tends to emphasize "sudden jumps" while smooth lines tend to emphasize rapid slope. If you look very closely, you can indeed see the rise up to about 1945, and the wiggle from 1945 to 1975 -- but now, the wiggle is represented by nearby data points (that are separated by 20 years of time!) that to some degree overlap, and slightly obscure, one another. This makes the wiggle far less obvious.
That the two studies disagree on some details is inevitable. The important thing is what they agree on. Both show frightening temperature rise in the 20th century, especially the late 20th century. Both show that modern global temperatures have no precedent on millenial time scales.
Yes, there are natural cyclical variations, but these changes are observed over centuries or millenia,... not by this sudden spike observed over the last 20 years. This spike is the real anomally; yet as archimedes noted, it's real and why it's so alarming.
Also, all the figures shown above present temperature changes, an obvious metric to illustrate global warming. But remember the underlying cause. This sudden spike in global mean temperatures is directly due to human-activity via fossil fuel emissions, particularly from CO2 emissions. This is the principal "proxy" metric that is ties its levels in the atmosphere with the increases in average global temperatures, "spiking" today. If you plot it's pts, it also looks like a hockey stick since temperatures were measured.
I took this pick from Dr. James Hansens presentation 2 months ago... which shows a rate of CO2 levels/year (ppm/yr)
"Hockey stick-like, too; ...but looks like a different game will be played in the year 2050 years.
The point -- Hansen illustrated that CO2 levels were directly due to human activity (fossil fuel emissions). He plotted the rate of change in COs le (ppm/yr), but absolute levels of CO2 (ppm only) illustrate expotential levelsof increase, since 1850. Recall from Clark's podcast, when he noted taht CO2 levels have increased from somewhere around 290ppm to 370ppm, today. That's roughtly an increase of 30%, since this the 1850s
I'll plug my previous blog on Dr. Hansen's seminar on "Human-caused global warming" here 
Would you care to speculate on why C02 levels are increasing? I understand that we burn fossil fuels and C02 is given off. However, increased C02 levels should stimulate photosynthesis and is doing drop the C02 levels back down. Why are these levels not droping. I speculate that photosynthetic activty in the oceans have been poisened by heavy metal dumping. Comments?
Maybe not a detailed answer. But, perhaps we can leave this for archimedes. Generally, there is a Carbon Cycle loop, which was in a relatively stable equilibrium, prior to the industrial revolution:
I pulled this from google; safeclimate.net
Over a long periods, ecosystems evolve its climate by the relative equilibirum of these cycling gases. For C02, plants and oceans can serve as carbon sinks, but I'm sure that the rate of absorption is dependent several environmental variables.
But the real issue is whether this carbon cycle is out of equilibrium. Does CO2 release exceed CO2 utilization, or vice versa? What is the net rate of Carbon Cycling, as the picture above suggests? Sinks, whether in plants and oceans can only assimilate so much CO2, over so much time.
Others can argue that trees and plants will get bigger and greener, but then we should remember that climate change could also cause regional droughts, resulting in hotter summers in the north and midwest of the US, for example. This would lead to less growth. Also, do these plants and trees possess leaves for photosynthesis,.. all year roound? Because, our society certainly burns fuel all year round.
But more importantly, we're deforesting our biggest carbon sink, the Amazon rainforest. this has been another major environmental issue, both as a resource for O2, but as a major sink for CO2. It's further aggravated when these pristine areas are burned for agricultural uses, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, the recent landslide in the Philippines, which tragically covered an entire village, was due to deforestation of its entire tropical mountain slopes, which became saturated after record rainfalls. Indonesia , as well many south pacific regions, have lost significant amounts of there rainforests to this activity and overlogging, as well.
So, in truth, the net effect would be less areas for carbon sinks and a shift in the carbon cycling equilibrium towards greater CO2 in the atmosphere, imo.
I read this theory very well explained as well in my new favorite magazine SEED- Science is Culture. Fantastic magazine, but the Mar/Apr issue has an article called "Everything you thought you knew about the rainforest may soon prove completely wrong." A married scientist team-- Deborah and David CLARK (!) have been studying what's happening to thousands of trees in the Costa Rican rainforest (with a team) for over 20 years and have discovered some radical findings. Have you seen this article?
In fact, for fellow geeks who are interested, ... Seed Magazine, also hosts ScienceBlogs (http://scienceblogs.com/)
Extra Note: Chris C. Mooney, author of "The Republican War on Science" fame, is a senior editor for Seed and blogs as, "Intersection", with a focus between science and public policy.
Psst, his book should be featured on the Clark Book Club
She's Book Club Queen!
And yes, the article I was referring to is there online if anyone is interested.
except for the evergreen trees and plants, no leaves during the winter months. The plains had a very important ecosystem with the natural prairie grasses and the buffalo grazing there. Ted Turner has been trying to return as much of the land as he can to that system. It's supposed to be as important an area as the rain forest. No reason we can't have the land used for that and wind farms. If prairie grass is anything like switch grass, maybe it could be used for fuel.
He was a real pioneer in this. I saw him speak here back in the 80's about how we should ALL (in CA) be planting cactus and native grasses and get rid of the sprawling sprinkled lawns everywhere.
I really wish he'd surprise everyone and get back in Major Media.... sigh.
They serve "home cooking" or so they say. Mostly it's an outlet for his bison. There are a couple of his places here I believe. He owns ranch land in Kansas.
Knight accepted the part within our little team of being our overall pointman (whereas, archimedes took on the role of lead for this particular series - on global warming, and lead writer on this entry and the next one).
Knight took that on and has been just terrific at it, an excellent guide for us (although, surely, he's exhausted by now, ;-), all that coding last night must have been quite a job). I'm tellin' ya... with Knight, archimedes, and Judy from NJ... this ol' layperson really got in w/ some great folks...
Besides, you all made it tooo easy...
Of course, they annoyed the hell out me with the round-the-clock emails that we all shared, 100s! ...let me tell'ya! ;)
But one of y'all better know html scripting by next Wednesday! 
And, I recommend that others who teamed up in other CCN Blog Series, also understand the basics of it, too. ;)
Here's another remarkable contribution to the study of global warming that, I think, also applies to the interesting question you bring up, haypops...(although I imagine Knightrider and archimedes can help to further open up the image and article below for us). I believe Wes, in his lead-off Clarkcast on global warming referred to the work of Keeling, who died in 2005... (The following image, and description of the image, comes from the site, "How to Save the World," whereas the article below the image comes from the site, "Earth Observatory")
The Keeling Curve, developed by the late Charles Keeling. Image from website of Dr. Jeff Masters. Flannery says this remarkable chart "shows the Earth breathing" -- inhaling in the northern spring as new plants absorb CO2 and exhaling in the northern fall as plants die and decompose.
Pioneering climate scientist Charles David Keeling died Monday, June 20, 2005. Keeling was best known for his precise measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, charted above in the Keeling curve, one of the most recognizable images in modern science.
The measurements show the steady rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere over a forty-seven-year period (1958-2005). Regular wobbles reflect the inhalation and exhalation of the Earth as plants grow, absorbing carbon in the summer and spring, and decay, releasing carbon in the fall and winter. The measurements shown in this curve represent the world’s longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide and were the first to confirm the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. As such, this is considered to be among the most important time-series data sets for the study of global climate change.
The data were collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory, perched 3,397 meters (11,140 feet) above sea level on the northern slopes of Earth’s largest volcano, away from dense vegetation or human population that might skew the measurements. The bare volcanic landscape surrounding the observatory is shown in the photo inset.
In a June 22 press release from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography—the organization that funded Keeling’s work and with which Keeling had been affiliated since 1956—the current director, Charles F. Kennel, praised Keeling’s research with the following words: “Charles David Keeling’s measurements of the global accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere set the stage for today’s profound concerns about climate change. They are the single most important environmental data set taken in the 20th century. David Keeling was living proof that a scientist could, by sticking close to his bench, change the world.”
Keeling received the National Medal of Science, the United States’ highest award for lifetime achievement in scientific research, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and many other awards for his work. To read more about his life and research, see “Climate Science Pioneer: Charles David Keeling” on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography web site.
NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data provided by the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory
One of the problems is deforestation and wiping out foliage for rampant development.
I read years ago that parking lots should be about 3/4 concrete and 1/4 grass -- alternating squares of grass and pavement. It would cool the air in cities and suck up CO2. Every green blade or leaf helps.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
interesting, that "respiration" system that the Earth's foliage apparently goes through... as seen in Keeling's Curve above...
It shows a part of the year (when an abundance of leaves are out) that the Earth's foliage takes in a significant portion of our CO2 (like "breathing in"); but then there's another part of the year (when the evergreen trees' leaves, etc., are no longer active, or are going through decay) that the Earth's foliage lets go of/does not take in, a significant portion of our CO2 (like "breathing out") - those squiggles in the curve, showing the yearly "respiration" cycle of the Earth...
I don't yet understand such a cycle well enough, what it tells us about the part the Earth's foliage plays in what happens to the CO2 in our atmosphere through the year and over time, but it certainly is piqueing (sp?) my interest..., ;-)
as individuals to stop this trend? For starters, I'd like to suggest a national movement for everyone to pledge to park their cars for at least one day per week. Walk, bike, rollerblade, hitch-hike, canoe, car pool, take the bus, sleep in, whatever. I would add to that to make it a personal pledge to NOT drive over 60 mph. Not only would we help preserve the environment, but it would save some gas and gas money, as well.
Why?
I'm trying to walk more even though I drive a Prius. I live in an area where I can walk to stores, the library and such. My city in Kansas has passed a resolution in 2005 that building design should be done this way from now on so people can be pedestrians. It's about time!!
This is fantastic. You've set a very high standard for the rest of the Series Blogs.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Archimedes, the lead writer of this first entry, is having to do some "work" work - you know, the makin' a livin' stuff - but I'm sure he'd love to dive in to whatever question/comments folks would like to bring up when he's able to break free...
So feel free to keep firin' away...
about ten states suing the Government over global warming:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5792
Why aren't all the states suing? 
Wesley Clark, the Voice of Reason!
MsBe, I think this part of the piece was significant and dangerous;
"In July 2005, a three-judge panel in the same court upheld the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act. The agency argues the law does not authorize them to regulate emissions to reduce global warming, and maintains there is not enough scientific data to support such a move.
The lawsuit was filed largely in response to the 2005 ruling, in the hopes that the courts will rule specifically whether the Clean Air Act can be used to fight global warming.
"We think this is the case that will decide that question," said Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer David Doniger.
-------------
The Heat Map (Figure 2) illustrates your point, why all states must be conserned....
Much of the entire US has averaged an increased of of 1oC degree. But states in the north and western regions have averaged an increase of as high as 2.5 oC degrees change.
George Stephanopolis of ABC This Week, recently had a special on gobal warming, and toured Montana. Not surprisingly, he witnessed that the states massive glaciers had signficantly retreated due to melting, likely as a result of global warmings greater impact here within the US in this region.
I tell ya, if only a few get on the bandwagon we will hear a lot of noise forever and no action. I'm fit to be tied! No more talk!
Wesley Clark, the Voice of Reason!
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5787
Jon Tester is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate and President of the Montana Senate. Polls show Jon Tester in a statistical dead-heat with sitting US Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT). Jon and wife Sharla are third and fourth-generation Montana family farmers and small-business owners in Big Sandy, Montana.
April 27 2006
A New Energy Future
by Jon Tester
Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate and President of the Montana Senate
It's springtime in Montana. That's when my wife and I get to work the fields on our family farm in Big Sandy.
What I'm struck by every spring is the sense of renewal, that our air, land, water, animals and plants will sustain us for another year.
That's why we need to think about renewable energy. America needs a new energy future that ends our addiction to foreign oil and strengthens our reliance on homegrown renewable energy we can create in Montana and America.
Skyrocketing energy costs, global warming, a war in the Middle East, and the decline of rural America show that our energy policy -- to the extent that we have one -- is not working.
America must develop a plan for a new energy future that:
- Strengthens our national security.
- Boosts our economy.
- And enhances our air, land, and water.
The path to a new energy future is not particularly complicated. We must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and develop domestic sources of energy.
That's why as president of the Montana Senate I worked in the 2005 Legislature to pass a renewable energy bill that says Montana utilities must get 15 percent of their energy from renewable resources by the year 2015. I support a similar national standard that would require by the year 2020 at least 15 percent of our nation's energy be derived from renewable resources like wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy.
That will strengthen our national security and help create jobs here at home, especially in rural Montana.
Here are some other actions we must take:
- We must end the experiment with energy deregulation. It simply didn't work. Deregulation pushed up energy rates, forced job layoffs, and hurt business and consumers. Montanans understand we gave away our low-cost power, and now we must develop a long-term energy strategy that ensures affordable, reliable power that helps business, workers and consumers.
- We should aggressively support the development of renewable energy. Unlike fossil fuels, the price of wind is free and does not fluctuate because of a war in the Middle East or hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. Renewable energy does not contribute to global warming or release toxic pollutants like mercury. And, renewable energy is homegrown, made in America, and will reinvigorate rural communities, providing new jobs.
I support appropriate incentives for the renewable energy industry. We give incentives to the oil and gas industry. It's time to level the playing field. The federal wind Production Tax Credit should be extended for 15 years instead of its usual two years to give the wind power industry some certainty. The Production Tax Credit gives a per-megawatt tax credit to produced wind power, and has been largely responsible for the rapid development of wind energy throughout the country in the last decade.
- We must invest in and encourage biodiesel and ethanol development. Biofuels, produced here at home, have the potential to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil while improving our rural farm and ranch economy. Crops for biofuels are not only a source of revenue, but also could be converted to fuel near where they are grown, to be used by producers in their own operations as a substitute for costly petroleum diesel. So, instead of large multinational corporations benefiting from supplying America with energy, a biofuels industry would be decentralized, involving many growers and refiners, which could create thousands of new jobs in Montana's and America's heartland.
- We cannot disregard the role coal will play in this country, but we must ensure that our use of coal is responsible. I applaud Governor Schweitzer, who has started a dialogue with Montanans on the advisability of turning coal into a liquid fuel. I agree with him that any coal development must occur in an environmentally sound manner. This means addressing global warming by capturing and storing carbon; means the removal of toxins like mercury; and means mining coal and reclaiming the land afterward in a way that protects our land and water.
We must take other steps, like promoting conservation, increasing fuel efficiency standards, and providing funding for energy research programs to ensure America's best minds are on the task.
The solutions to our problems are in front of us. What has been missing is the political will to make these choices.
In the end, this is the American people's decision. Knowing you, the citizens of Montana, makes me confident that we will achieve a new energy future, and, in so doing enable our grandchildren to make their home on God's good earth.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5739#comment-97480
"Water is to the 21 century what oil was to the 20th..."
I look forward to being educated by you science geeks. ;)
---------------------
A Wes Clark Democrat
WesDem's DU Journal