What About Global Warming?

you want to hire the Dutch. Even if the United States goes along with your little request, don't you think we'd ruin it, like we did the Colonies?

:p

I'm clear on the reduction of water allotted, per farmer. What I'd like to know for certain is whether there are [i]more farmers[/i], and also whether the [i]total consumption allotment[/i] has been reduced during this drought. If it isn't, it is logical to assume that the source will not revert to its initial, 'full' or baseline quantity, and you will continue to experience shortfalls.

HAL wrote, "But here there is no Political argument about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever you want to call it here. Every Politician accepts it is real and happening NOW!"

And I bet that is really satisfying.

"Maybe it could be the fact that we are as a country in the middle of the worst drought in our entire history"

Maybe you should stop wringing your hands over a possible problem and work toward solving the actual problem. If you have a drought in a desert perhaps you ought to consider a national effort toward creating a series of nuclear powered desalinization/reverse osmosis water purification stations. Put them near the oceans (you have plenty of those) and turn salt water into fresh.

You guys used to be great! Don't go down without at least trying to solve the real problem.

What is yours?

[i]I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting. We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians and scientists from the US, the world at large and (shudder!) the perfidious United Nations who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy and enslaving your people into a lifetime of dependency hand-outs and control. Yet your government is doing NOTHING. The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you're even doing that ineffectually. (Right, we don't quite give a sh!t about screwing the other guy when there's no possibility of profit for ourselves.) Actually, "totally crap" would be a better description.[/i]

OK, so we're not "doing Kyoto" like you hoped. Therefore, what? Are you trying something new, or trying the same tactic that already malfunctioned? I have seen the truism that insanity consists of doing the same thing while expecting differenet results 'this time' attributed to one of the United States' Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin I believe it was. According to 'quotiki', the first result delivered by Yahoo.com, Albert Einstein said that. Whatever. Nobody's paying me to be right about this quote, so I don't give enough of a sh!t to be careful about the original source. Certainly, it is a popular belief this side of the pond. Get used to it.

Seriously, you just don't know how to talk to Americans. You need to remember this is the home of the Ponzi scheme. Even if it's outrageous, when you propose an environmentalist course of action (We call it "selling" an idea even when we're talking about politics! Mull that over, mate.) what you have to do is think of something that will benefit the environment, then think of how somebody could imagine making a buck off that course of action. You will not believe how capitalists respond to the remotest of unlikely possibilities of $$$$$$$$$ !

Oh, and for more anecdotal evidence, don't forget our Lottos. Sure, other countries have church raffles or whatever, but nobody wastes their life savings $1 at a time like the Yanks!

Recently I bought a couple of Bell Crash Helmets something that has always been good old USA Made and what did I find when they arrived Made In Italy on the box and inside the Helmets.

Wasn't a surprise as a couple of years ago i found this out and was appalled that Bell was no longer making Crash Helmets in the USA but I find it funny that you are willing to accept the extra costs in producing something in Europe which is [b]Clean & Green[/b] and still refuse to accept that you can make money without destroying parts of the environment.

But as you're sure that Man can not have any adverse influence on the environment I have some Commercial Fishing Licenses Available for you to buy to Fish Parts of Sydney Harbour where eating the fish will poising both you and your children and anyone else silly enough to eat these fish.

Col

Fewer Farmers and Less water being removed in total numbers of Mega Lites so what is left in the river which is still falling is only there because of the reduction in Irrigation that is being allowed.

There are also a couple of Endangered Species in the Murry River like the Murry Cod which have been moved from In Danger to Close to Extinction but at least if the river drys up we'll be able to get rid of all the foreign invaders like the carp which are destroying the river for the Murry Cod.

However for that to happen several dams would have to be run dry and that would mean a reduction in Hydro Electric Power that is generated at these Dams.

Actually announced today Level 5 Water Restrictions will involve the reduction in available water of 40% to one power station and 25% to another which will not adversely impact on available Power but will mean that any excess generated will no longer be available to sell Interstate so the States Income will drop accordingly but this reduction should allow another 3 months of available water. Not sure yet what happens to domestic residences but Industry this time seems to be taking the brunt of the restrictions so they will have to stop wasting water and start some form of recovery. I'll know more when the Official Announcement is made. Currently the State Government is [b]leaking[/b] what they want us to hear. :D

Col

Of laying a pipeline from the ocean to one of the dams should be finished in about 9 months if things go to contract. To pipe water from a Solar Powered Desalination Plant to one of the dams. This is an immediate step till more Desalination Plants can be built and come on line as well as Sewerage Recycling plants be built and come on line within a couple of years time. Currently the Desalination Plants are fast and easy to build but ultimately will never be able to provide enough water so they are at best a Stop Gap Measure till the Water Recycling plants can come On line.

As for Nuclear Desalination Plants firstly after the 74 Floods nothing is safe from Flooding in this part of the world unless it is really far inland which defeats the purpose of the plants and we currently don't have the Infrastructure to support any form of Nuclear Industry other than mining Yellow Cake. Then the Federal Government would have to have control of any of these plants as they hold all the Nuclear cards and couldn't allow a State to have something that they can not control and place a entire Departments worth of Bureaucrats in charge of to make sure that it's safe. X-(

It would go something like this in costs the Reactor costs $2.50 to buy & run but you need to pay 84 Billion for the Bureaucrats to monitor it to make sure that it's safe and first commission a study on what you can use. [i]No I'll stop there as that is one of my bugbears Bureaucrats and Safety is an Oxymoron when used in the same sentence.[/i] Besides we don't have the time for them to do an assessment as to what would be best then an Environmental Impact Study by the time that they finished we would have all died from dehydration. :^0

We have 1 Medical Reactor in service that will be taken out of service as soon as the replacement one is finished off which should have been 25 years ago and the Cyclotron that I was approached to run 15 odd years ago to produce Medical Isotopes is yet to have funding allocated for it. But just to add a bit of Interest I did a paper on the Holding Tanks and recommended a different design to prevent ground water contamination in the event of any Tectonic Activity which was laughed out of existence and when they where doing the earth works for the new reactor they found a Fault Line directly under where it was supposed to be located. It's since been moved but not far enough to be considered as safe and I wounder if I'll eventually get paid for that report that wasn't necessary 28 years ago. :0

With Interest I could retire and never need to lift a finger again. :^0

But knowing the Bureaucrats they will use my plans and I'll not get paid for the time and effort that I went to. :D

It doesn't matter that since that Paper was written there has been a Earthquake that flattened Newcastle and a major Fault line found directly under where a Reactor was supposed to be placed. The same old argument still stands Australia isn't subject to Earthquake activity so you don't need to worry about this and it's a waste of time and money.

Col

When you start talking about fault and what should be done about it, it ceases to be a scientific topic and turns into an attempt by one group to bully another group. In other words, politics!

"Recently I bought a couple of Bell Crash Helmets something that has always been good old USA Made and what did I find when they arrived Made In Italy on the box and inside the Helmets.

Wasn't a surprise as a couple of years ago i found this out and was appalled that Bell was no longer making Crash Helmets in the USA but I find it funny that you are willing to accept the extra costs in producing something in Europe which is Clean & Green and still refuse to accept that you can make money without destroying parts of the environment."

[i]How[/i] "clean & green"? How does any increase in cost compare to the savings in labor?

$$$$$$$

"But as you're sure that Man can not have any adverse influence on the environment I have some Commercial Fishing Licenses Available for you to buy to Fish Parts of Sydney Harbour where eating the fish will poising both you and your children and anyone else silly enough to eat these fish."

I see you have a straw man. It's no match for my flamethrower.

[i]scientific topics like this
When you start talking about fault and what should be done about it, it ceases to be a scientific topic and turns into an attempt by one group to bully another group. In other words, politics![/i]

Agreed, Tony. Now, does that logically imply that it is more or less important to address the science in this than in other topics?

[edits: punctuation & syntax]

but claiming to be talking about the science when really talking about the politics affects perceived credibility.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/czech_pres_environmentalism_is_a_religion/20070309-060020-3030r/

I've been saying that for years.

"It's (topics in science with political overtones) no more or less important
but claiming to be talking about the science when really talking about the politics affects perceived credibility."

I understand that it affects credibility as you perceive your opponents. They, however, are not persuaded, even though you perceive them as not credible. So, by dismantling what they are calling their "evidence", you would not only establish your credibility, but get rid of the onerous taxes associated, if that's really something you're pursuing.

deep wrote, "Spouting off without the facts.
1) If the effects were so localized, why did several eastern states seek to sue the EPA for failing to rein in said power plant emissions?"

Why does anybody sue anybody? Everyone is looking for deep pockets. It is a blood sport. Since the public seems remarkably gullible it seems a safe bet that federal taxpayers could be fleeced for a local good. It is immoral.

"2) If the effect were so localized, why were so many metallic surfaces corroded by sulphuric acid laden rain in so many places separated by great distances from said power plants?"

I do not recall saying that only local power plants were polluting. A decade-long federally-funded national acid precipitation study found local effects to local polluters.

Your mileage may vary.

"3) If the effects are so localized then why has a cousin of mine had a research position for nearly 4 decades with the Univ. of Illinois related to such?"

Why indeed? Religious training?

deep wrote, "You have claimed, with a tone of confidence & authority, that the science of human-caused global warming is invalid, and the motivation is political."

Yes. I have. There is no science of human-induced global warming. There is lots of data that says the Earth has been warning since the last great ice age ended. And there are assumptions that Americans caused it. Cool.

"This is an opportunity for you to present some data that support your assertions."

You are way too hung up on data. It is the conclusions that are important, not the data.

I just stumbled across a quote from Christopher Hitchens: "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It reminded me of you, and this thread specifically.

As a matter of fact, I'm only visiting TechRepublic right now to tip my hat to you. I've grown to truly admire the way you dismiss inappropriate claims, not wasting time on mountains of inconsequential "evidence", but jumping straight to the point, which in politics is always: "therefore, what?"

You keep arguing the good argument, and I'll keep learning to skip past the BS to the "therefore, what?"

To all the "global warming" zealots: Instead of complaining about my emissions, I invite you to buy me one of these:

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/

To get a proper debate on every topic, challenge rigorously every claim that implies any compromise of your liberties, be they essential or only pleasant. Here in the United States, many of us still believe that anybody who wants to limit our behaviour, in any way, had better have a [b]fully valid reason[/b]. This tends to provoke debates, which frequently devolve to excessively petty levels, but some of them also have value. Challenge the stated premises, and the implied assumptions of those premises, and the tyrants will be on the run for a change.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188709

.....second thoughts.

I'll send you 12 for ten cents!

Of course, they're all as imaginary as the "ghostly mouse" they're designed to trap, so you'll have to just believe that it has arrived, and that they are the reason for the disappearance of your ghice.

As usual, you've evaded the hard questions, just as you have so many times before in other discussions.

If all you have to offer is opinions, you would be well advised to recall that opinions supported by the facts have no lasting value. The universe is a cold and uncaring place, and neither knows of nor gives a whit about opinions.

My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration.

Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool.

Your claimed reason for not engaging in formal debate is a classical excuse given by countless others throughout the course of history.

The truth of the matter is that, like so many who have no firm ground for their position, and therefore little likelihood of being able to defend it, you seek only to avoid defeat.

.....does not support YOUR conclusion. It is your conclusion that is terribly flawed, as I've shown in several messages within this discussion.

Man-caused and/or man-contributed global warming and/or climate change is, at best, pure speculation based on inconclusive and/or incomplete and/or incorrect data. The premise is flawed, thereby rendering your conclusion either flawed or incorrect.

In lay-terms, you've been duped.

And, for the record, as I've clearly stated on several occasions, I am an [i]agnostic[/i], not an atheist; that's a distinction with an important difference.

You base your conclusion on flawed and/or incorrect and/or incomplete data, but claim that your conclusion is correct, thereby "winning" the debate. Simply saying so doesn't make it so. You can claim that Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000, but he didn't; and simply saying he won doesn't place him in the White House.

You lost this debate whether you acknowledge it or not.

Rule no. 3 isn't mine. You've obviously misattributed a rule set forth by another.

Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[i]And[/i], demonstrate that such is recognized by the scientific community at large as being so.

It's in the many messages throughout this discussion.

[b]If[/b] it should come to pass that the scientific community is, as you claim, either so badly in error or so politically corrupted, then, and only then, I shall concede.

Just don't look too closely under the hood.

1) "[i]if 100% is radiated back into space ...[/i]" It is [b]not[/b] the case that 100% of the influx of solar radiation is reflected and/or re-radiated.

2) The net influx of solar radiation is at sub-IR wavelengths. Of that, some is reflected, with the balance absorbed. Of that portion absorbed, some is [b]re-radiated at IR wavelengths.[/b]

3) Atmospheric components such as CO2 and H2O vapor absorb and re-radiate some of this IR radiation [b]back to Earth.[/b]

4) Combustion of fossil based fuels yields, among others, CO2, H2O and [b]heat[/b].

5) The byproducts name in 4) serves to both increase the amount of atmospheric components that serve to block the egress of IR radiation while at the same time generating IR radiation.

Stop over-simplifying.

If you know the sciences involved, then state them honestly; if you don't know, don't pretend, and don't make flippant and specious remarks.

You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved; rather, you seek to simply pursue your denial of anything and everything that fails to comport with your perceived right to act in a manner that is irresponsible and detrimental to others by way of nonsensical verbalizations.

I'm not talked about a detractor of global warming and/or man's contribution to such claiming that the data supports his claim.

It is the calving of ice shelves which serves to raise the ocean level; snowfall is here of no consequence.

See
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2189234

Hell, I recall a time when it was openly claimed on TV the Doctors endorsed smoking as being good for your health. And, not knowing better, I believed them.

Soryy about the earlier terse post. I have been enjoying the early Spring sunshine following on from the "warmest winter on record" so I've been out and about walking on the Downs.

The stir it has caused is in the fact that it has given the GW-deniers some simple ammunition against the normally overwhelming "evidence" provided for the pro- lobby.

"Did you see that program on Channel Four, then?" gives the anti-GW more to say than his or her usual "I just don't think it is our fault".

The good Dr. Singer should here be subject to no less scrutiny than would be one introduced at trial as an "expert witness."

It's YOUR observational data that is flawed and/or incomplete and/or incorrect, not ours. I've proven that to be the case, and provided links and sources as support. It's you who fail to address the all the holes shot through your data and subsequent conclusion. If you were on trial for murder, you'd be convicted because you can't account for your whereabouts during the times brought forward. And in this case, you can't account for the objections and corrections in the bogus "data story" you've been spewing.

I don't think "conservative" has maintained its historic meaning either :(

deep wrote, "My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration."

Deep, you have the mistaken impression that this is somehow about science. It is not. It is about politics. Those on one side have something to gain by staking out their positions. Perhaps it is continued funding. Or the ability to significantly harm a competitor. It is about who gains and who pays. In a word, politics.

"Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool."

My position is quite real. I see a threat to my liberty, my freedoms, my way of life and my finances. The gradual changes that have been occurring for the last ten thousand years will continue. We will adjust as we have adjusted in the past. There will be winners and losers, just as there have always been. I do not need the overbearing power of the state to get in the way.

deep wrote, "You and your ilk are cowards."

Why yes. If you say it is so then it must be. Or it might just be a waste of time. It is not the science it is the politics. You want to argue the science of gradual warming and computer models. I want to discuss the politics of enslavement of an entire class of people (taxpayers) by another (green politicians) through the use of a fraud.

We have no common ground.

deep wrote, "The truth comes out - it's about your freedom to f*ck up the world.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."

And vice versa. I am only asking to be left alone. You and your green/socialist allies are asking for my enslavement. No thank you.

deep wrote, "You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved;"
Conversely, you have no intention of discussing the far more dangerous political issues involved.

Therefore we have no common ground upon which to discourse.

Simply saying the same thing to me that I just said to you? How lame and childish.

You're debated into a corner, and you're getting desperate. What you've been trying to pass off as "scientific facts" all this time has been debunked, and you're struggling. Moreover, it's been shown that the "debate" is really political, not scientific. But you've been living the lie for so long, you apparently don't know how to handle being publicly proved wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

These are the lunatics who make up the global warming movement. They need to be corrected and discredited, and their lies and true motives must be exposed. Any global warming proponent should be ashamed to be a part of this group.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2006/18/global_warming.html

"Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years, and the continent is actually gaining ice"

Discontinuing this practice would probably reduce the amount of possible [i]arguing[/i] of same side issues.

To-do list:
1. Comment less.

but I just now saw it.

[i]mainly CO2[/i]

I cannot let that go unchallenged.

C02 accounts for only about 4% of the "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere. How do you get "mainly" based on that?

was president when the Mars rovers were sent there, it's obviously his fault :)

they're trying to convince the average voter.

are but a small part of it. I'm pursuing a world where people are freed from the control of others, and I will resist to the best of my ability attempts to strengthen such control (which is what I think the global warming issue is). And while there are undoubtedly some more able, that will not prevent me from trying.

that they are a poor substitute for facts, implies an assumption about the [b]intended purpose[/b] of those remarks. Flippant, non-substantive remarks, in my observation, are not [b]intended[/b] as a decent substitute for facts, but rather as an [b]indecent[/b] substitute, utilized by those lacking the ability to provide facts to support their beliefs, and/or lacking the integrity to espouse beliefs according to facts.

Unfortunately, the mere opportunity to express an opinion frequently produces numerous duplicates of the same opinion, among those who judge it more important to concur with those closest to them than to concur with fact. Thus, the unfortunate necessity of sometimes confronting even flippant remarks.

It is a thankless, tiresome, time-consuming job.

will not return to TechRepublic. He seemed not to have much to say beyond repetition of Yoodler's...musings.

Science 16 June 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5780, pp. 1612 - 1613
DOI: 10.1126/science.1128908

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget
Sergey A. Zimov1, Edward A. G. Schuur2, F. Stuart Chapin III3

The carbon content of Earth's atmosphere has increased from ~360 gigatons (Gt)--mainly as CO2--during the last glacial maximum to ~560 Gt during preindustrial times and ~730 Gt today. These changes reflect redistributions among the main global carbon reservoirs. The largest such reservoir is the ocean (40,000 Gt, of which 2500 Gt is organic carbon), followed by soils (1500 Gt) and vegetation (650 Gt). There is also a large geological reservoir, from which ~6.5 Gt of carbon are released annually to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) is an additional large carbon reservoir that is rarely incorporated into analyses of changes in global carbon reservoirs. Here we illustrate the importance of permafrost carbon in the global carbon budget by describing the past and potential future dynamics of frozen loess (windblown dust, termed yedoma in Siberia) that was deposited during the glacial age, covering more than 1 million km2 of the north plains of Siberia and Central Alaska to an average depth of ~25 m.

The frozen yedoma represents relict soils of the mammoth steppe-tundra ecosystem that occupied this territory during glacial times (1). As windblown or river-borne materials accumulated on the soil surface, the bottom of the previously thawed soil layer became incorporated into permafrost. These sediments contain little of the humus that characterizes modern ecosystems of the region, but they comprise large amounts of grass roots (see the figure) and animal bones, resulting in a carbon content that is much higher than is typical of most thawed mineral soils. Frozen yedoma deposits across Siberia and Alaska typically have average carbon contents from 2% to 5%--roughly 10 to 30 times the amount of carbon generally found in deep, nonpermafrost mineral soils.

Using an overall average carbon concentration for yedoma of ~2.6%, as well as the typical bulk density, average thickness, and ice-wedge content of the yedoma, we estimate the carbon reservoir in frozen yedoma to be ~500 Gt (2). Another ~400 Gt of carbon are contained in nonyedoma permafrost (excluding peatlands) (3), and 50 to 70 Gt reside in the peatbogs of western Siberia (4). These preliminary estimates indicate that permafrost is a large carbon reservoir, intermediate in size between those of vegetation and soils.

Our laboratory incubations and field experiments show that the organic matter in yedoma decomposes quickly when thawed, resulting in respiration rates of initially 10 to 40 g of carbon per m3 per day, and then 0.5 to 5 g of carbon per m3 per day over several years. These rates are similar to those of productive northern grassland soils. If these rates are sustained in the long term, as field observations suggest, then most carbon in recently thawed yedoma will be released within a century--a striking contrast to the preservation of carbon for tens of thousands of years when frozen in permafrost.

Some local thawing of yedoma occurs independently of climate change. When permafrost ice wedges thaw, the ground subsides (thermokarst), forming lakes. The abundant thermokarst lakes on yedoma territory migrate across the plains as thawing and subsidence occur along their margins. During the Holocene (the past 10,000 years), about half of the yedoma thawed beneath these migratory lakes and then refroze when the lakes had moved on.

The yedoma carbon beneath the thermokarst lakes is decomposed by microbes under anaerobic conditions, producing methane that is released to the atmosphere primarily by bubbling (5). Near eroding lake shores, methane bubbling is so high that channels through the lake ice remain open all winter. During a thaw/freeze cycle associated with lake migration, ~30% of yedoma carbon is decomposed by microbes and converted to methane. As a potent greenhouse gas, this methane contributes to climate warming.

In response to climate warming, permafrost sediments have already begun to thaw (6), with extreme projections that almost all yedoma will thaw by the end of the 21st century (7). What would happen to the carbon derived from permafrost if high-latitude warming continues?

The unique isotopic signature of permafrost carbon provides clues from past warming episodes, such as the transition from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C). Methane, CO2, and dissolved organic carbon released from thawing yedoma have a radiocarbon age reflecting the time when the yedoma was formed in the glacial age, differentiating the permafrost carbon signal from emissions from other reservoirs that have a modern radiocarbon age.

For example, the release of a large pool of radiocarbon-depleted carbon from permafrost could have contributed to declines in atmospheric radiocarbon during two strong warming events that occurred during the last deglaciation. These radiocarbon changes have previously been attributed to an assumed increase in deep- and mid-ocean venting, because no terrestrial pool that could readily release ancient carbon (such as permafrost carbon) was included in the analysis (8).

Figure 1 Ancient soils. (Left) Exposed carbon-rich soils from the mammoth steppe-tundra along the Kolyma River in Siberia. The soils are 53 m thick; massive ice wedges are visible. (Right) Soil close-up showing 30,000-year-old grass roots preserved in the permafrost.

CREDIT: S. A. ZIMOV

Carbon loss from permafrost may also have contributed to past changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. During the last glacial maximum, permafrost extended south to 45?N in Europe and to 40?N in North America. About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed in the early Holocene (9, 10). If this frozen loess initially had a carbon concentration similar to the average for yedoma (2.6% C) and decreased to the carbon concentration of the current soils (0.15% C), it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene. Additional carbon was presumably released by thawing of nonloess permafrost (river-borne, slope, and glacial sediments).

Most researchers assume that the terrestrial carbon reservoir declined by 300 to 700 Gt at the last glacial maximum as a result of ice sheet formation and a decline in forest area. This terrestrial carbon was assumed to have been transferred to the oceans (11). However, these estimates ignore the soils and peat buried in frozen moraines beneath glaciers (380 Gt) (12) and assume that the broad expanses (~24 million km2) of steppe-tundra had a carbon content typical of polar deserts (4 to 40 Gt) (13, 14). The assumed soil carbon content for steppe-tundra in Siberia was only 0.1 kg m-2 (13).

We can now provide a more accurate estimate of the carbon content of the steppe-tundra based on direct measurements. The carbon content of lowland steppe-tundra soils in Siberia and Alaska is ~2.6% with an active-layer depth of about 1 m, yielding ~42 kg of carbon per m2. In mountains, the carbon content is about 50% less, giving an average carbon content for the steppe-tundra biome of ~30 kg per m2 and a total carbon content of ~720 Gt. Taking into account frozen loess (500 Gt), steppe-tundra soils (720 Gt), sediments beneath ice sheets (380 Gt), and other frozen sediments, we hypothesize that the total terrestrial carbon reservoir did not decrease in glacial times but instead may have even absorbed several hundred gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean.

The decline in the 13C/12C ratio in marine dissolved inorganic carbon, recorded in shells of foraminifera, in glacial times is usually taken as strong evidence of transfer of terrestrial carbon to the ocean (11). However, the size and isotopic composition of the marine reservoir of organic carbon are similar to those on land (15), making it difficult to identify changes in the relative sizes of marine and terrestrial organic reservoirs. A decline in marine productivity (perhaps associated with reduced vertical mixing and reduced illumination under ice) might lead to a net release of depleted 13C from marine organic carbon reservoirs that could instead have caused the decreased foraminifera isotope ratio. Recent reanalysis of data from marine sediment cores shows that biological productivity and carbon export to ocean sediments were substantially reduced at the middle of the last glacial cycle in all oceans. At the last glacial maximum, biological productivity in the Atlantic Ocean increased, but in the much larger Pacific Ocean it decreased (16). Independent of carbon transfers between land and ocean, the reduction in alkalinity associated with the lower atmospheric CO2 concentration at the last glacial maximum could also explain the reduced 13C/12C ratio of foraminifera (17). Given this estimate of permafrost carbon storage on land, the redistribution of carbon during glacial periods is a fertile area for reassessment. Permafrost is a globally significant carbon reservoir that responds to climate change in a unique and very simple way: With warming, its spatial extent declines, causing rapid carbon loss; with cooling, the permafrost reservoir refills slowly, a dynamic that mirrors the past atmospheric record of CO2. In a warmer climate, permafrost carbon is thus likely to become part of more actively cycling carbon reservoirs. Factors inducing high-latitude climate warming should be mitigated to minimize the risk of a potentially large carbon release that would further increase climate warming.

Referenes and Notes

1. A. V. Sher et al., Quat. Sci. Rev. 24, 533 (2005). [CrossRef]
2. In our calculation, we assumed a bulk density of 1.65 tons per m3, a yedoma thickness of 25 m, and an ice-wedge content of 50%.
3. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2005). [publisher's information]
4. L. C. Smith et al., Science 303, [353] (2004).
5. S. A. Zimov et al., Science 277, [800] (1997).
6. V. E. Romanovsky et al., Tohoku Geophys. J. 36, 224 (2001).
7. D. M. Lawrence, A. G. Slater, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L24401 (2005). [CrossRef]
8. K. A. Hughen et al., Science 290, [1951] (2000).
9. A. L. Washburn, Geocryology. A Survey of Periglacial Processes and Environments (Edward Arnold, London, 1979).
10. A. A. Velichko, Prirodnyi Process v Pleistocene (Nauka, Moscow, 1973).
11. M. I. Bird et al., Nature 371, 566 (1994). [CrossRef]
12. N. Zeng, Adv. Atmos. Sci. 20, 677 (2003).
13. J. M. Adams et al., Nature 348, 711 (1990). [CrossRef]
14. P. Friedlingstein et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 7203 (1995). [CrossRef]
15. V. Brovkin et al., Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3, 1027 (2002). [CrossRef]
16. K. E. Kohfeld et al., Science 308, [74] (2005).
17. H. J. Spero et al., Nature 390, 497 (1997). [CrossRef]

10.1126/science.1128908
1S. A. Zimov is at the North-East Scientific Station, Pacific Institute for Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Cherskii, Republic of Sakha 678830, Russia. E-mail: sazimov@cher.sakha.ru

2E. A. G. Schuur is in the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

3F. S. Chapin III is at the Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000, USA.

[i]We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The "crisis" is the global warming political agenda, not climate change.[/i]

So says Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1

(Okay all you global warming zealots; it's now time to discredit Professor Stott.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025

No, that's not political; global warming is all about science, right? ..... Yea, right!

[i]I think it's time I "declare war" on these people.[/i]

When you do, I have found 'therefore, what' to be a formidable weapon. I think you're going to win.

I would amend the rules to allow political & scientific arguments from both sides, in the same debate thread. [b]Now[/b] who's in?

http://www.institutmolinari.org/editos/20070221.htm