General Electric resumed dredging for contaminants in the upper Hudson River on Tuesday afternoon after shutting down operations in response to tests that showed that chemicals from the cleanup had traveled several miles downstream.The Environmental Protection Agency, which had ordered the dredging halted on Friday, said that operations would restart in stages and initially be confined to only three of 11 sites on the river where the dredges had been operating. Additional dredging areas may be added pending another round of water sampling, said Kristen Skopeck, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Water tests conducted about five miles south of Fort Edward in Washington County, where most of the dredging is under way, showed that levels of the chemicals known as PCBs exceeded water quality standards. E.P.A. officials has asked General Electric, which is overseeing the cleanup, to find methods for confining the sediment disturbed by the dredging to each site and keep PCB levels down elsewhere in the river.
The agency said that “enhanced engineering controls” would be incorporated at each dredge location to keep water from spilling out of the dredge buckets and back into the river.
The dredging operation, which began in May along a six-mile segment south of Fort Edward, is the first phase of a cleanup expected to last through 2015. (The current phase is expected to continue well into the fall.)
Two General Electric factories discharged PCBs for three decades beginning in the 1940s before PCBs were banned in 1977 as a health threat to people and wildlife. That led to the federal designation of nearly 200 miles of the river, from Hudson Falls, N.Y., to the southern tip of Manhattan, as a contaminated Superfund site.
Under the legislation that created the Superfund program, the responsible party, G.E., is required to supervise and pay for the cleanup. The company periodically posts updates on the operation at www.hudsondredging.com.
Another 34 miles of river, running to Troy, N.Y., are to be dredged in the project’s second phase.
Ms. Skopeck said the temporary shutdown was not expected to significantly delay the cleanup. Mark Behan, a spokesman for General Electric, said that heavy rains this summer had swelled the river’s flow and caused intermittent suspensions of some dredging already.
"It will have an effect in productivity,” he said of the shutdown. "But it’s too early to tell how much of an effect.” ownstream.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Stowaway insects imperil Darwin's finches
The famous Galapagos finches could be among the first casualties of mosquitoes that are stowing away on aircraft, potentially bringing fatal viruses to the islands.
Live mosquitoes captured in the holds of aircraft arriving on the Galapagos from mainland Ecuador were found to survive and breed on the islands. Although none of the captured mosquitoes carried lethal viruses such as the West Nile virus (WNV) – which decimated bird populations in the US after arriving in New York in 1999 – they have the potential to do so.
WNV has been reported in Colombia and Argentina, and could have reached Ecuador, says Simon Goodman of the University of Leeds, who co-led the research team. It is not only the finches that are at risk. "West Nile virus also affects reptiles and mammals, and so could impact other iconic Galapagos species such as marine iguanas and sea lions," Goodman says.
Wildlife threat
Goodman and his colleagues found 74 live insects after searching the holds of 93 aircraft landing on Baltra Island in the Galapagos. Of these, six were Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes, which transmit WNV and the parasite that causes bird malaria. Two more were caught in aircraft that landed on nearby San Cristobal.
"The consequences for wildlife could be severe," says Marm Kilpatrick of the University of California, Santa Cruz. The findings are probably an underestimate of the true numbers of mosquitoes arriving, he says.
By comparing genes from mosquitoes caught on the mainland with those on the Galapagos, the researchers were able to show that arrivals from Ecuador survive and breed with Galapagos mosquitoes.
Live mosquitoes captured in the holds of aircraft arriving on the Galapagos from mainland Ecuador were found to survive and breed on the islands. Although none of the captured mosquitoes carried lethal viruses such as the West Nile virus (WNV) – which decimated bird populations in the US after arriving in New York in 1999 – they have the potential to do so.
WNV has been reported in Colombia and Argentina, and could have reached Ecuador, says Simon Goodman of the University of Leeds, who co-led the research team. It is not only the finches that are at risk. "West Nile virus also affects reptiles and mammals, and so could impact other iconic Galapagos species such as marine iguanas and sea lions," Goodman says.
Wildlife threat
Goodman and his colleagues found 74 live insects after searching the holds of 93 aircraft landing on Baltra Island in the Galapagos. Of these, six were Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes, which transmit WNV and the parasite that causes bird malaria. Two more were caught in aircraft that landed on nearby San Cristobal.
"The consequences for wildlife could be severe," says Marm Kilpatrick of the University of California, Santa Cruz. The findings are probably an underestimate of the true numbers of mosquitoes arriving, he says.
By comparing genes from mosquitoes caught on the mainland with those on the Galapagos, the researchers were able to show that arrivals from Ecuador survive and breed with Galapagos mosquitoes.
Galapagos face ecological disaster due to tourism: study
Mosquitoes brought into the Galapagos on tourist planes and boats threaten to wreak "ecological disaster" in the islands, central to Darwin's theory of evolution, a study said Wednesday.
The insects can spread potentially lethal diseases in the archipelago off Ecuador's Pacific coast, used by Charles Darwin as the basis of his seminal work "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
"Few tourists realise the irony that their trip to Galapagos may actually increase the risk of an ecological disaster," said Simon Goodman of Leeds University, one of the study's co-authors.
"That we haven't already seen serious disease impacts in Galapagos is probably just a matter of luck."
The study found that the southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, was regularly hitching rides on planes from the South American mainland, and island-hopping on tourist boats between the different islands.
Species threatened by diseases such as avian malaria or West Nile include the islands' best-known residents, its giant tortoises, as well as marine iguanas, sea lions and finches.
Arnaud Bataille, another researcher on the eight-page study, said: "On average the number of mosquitoes per aeroplane is low, but many aircraft arrive each day from the mainland in order to service the tourist industry."
Worse, "the mosquitoes seem able to survive and breed once they leave the plane," he added.
Goodman noted that Ecuador recently introduced a requirement for all aircraft flying to the Galapagos to have insecticide treatment, but said similar moves are needed for ships, and the impact needs to be evaluated.
"With tourism growing so rapidly, the future of Galapagos hangs on the ability of the Ecuadorian government to maintain stringent biosecurity protection for the islands," he said.
The study, co-authored by Leeds University, the Zoological Society of London, the University of Guayaquil, the Galapagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation, was published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.
Some 10,000 people, mostly fishermen, live on the volcanic Galapagos archipelago, which rose from the Pacific seabed 10 million years ago and became famous when Darwin visited to conduct research in 1835.
The insects can spread potentially lethal diseases in the archipelago off Ecuador's Pacific coast, used by Charles Darwin as the basis of his seminal work "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
"Few tourists realise the irony that their trip to Galapagos may actually increase the risk of an ecological disaster," said Simon Goodman of Leeds University, one of the study's co-authors.
"That we haven't already seen serious disease impacts in Galapagos is probably just a matter of luck."
The study found that the southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, was regularly hitching rides on planes from the South American mainland, and island-hopping on tourist boats between the different islands.
Species threatened by diseases such as avian malaria or West Nile include the islands' best-known residents, its giant tortoises, as well as marine iguanas, sea lions and finches.
Arnaud Bataille, another researcher on the eight-page study, said: "On average the number of mosquitoes per aeroplane is low, but many aircraft arrive each day from the mainland in order to service the tourist industry."
Worse, "the mosquitoes seem able to survive and breed once they leave the plane," he added.
Goodman noted that Ecuador recently introduced a requirement for all aircraft flying to the Galapagos to have insecticide treatment, but said similar moves are needed for ships, and the impact needs to be evaluated.
"With tourism growing so rapidly, the future of Galapagos hangs on the ability of the Ecuadorian government to maintain stringent biosecurity protection for the islands," he said.
The study, co-authored by Leeds University, the Zoological Society of London, the University of Guayaquil, the Galapagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation, was published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.
Some 10,000 people, mostly fishermen, live on the volcanic Galapagos archipelago, which rose from the Pacific seabed 10 million years ago and became famous when Darwin visited to conduct research in 1835.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Vilsack at CU: Climate-change innovations create opportunity
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack praised those at a biochar conference Monday at the University of Colorado, calling them innovators who potentially could help fight climate change and even create new economic opportunities for farmers.
Vilsack gave the keynote address at the conference, which is the first major biochar gathering in the United States. Biochar, created when organic materials are burned in a low-oxygen environment, is touted as an environmentally friendly way to turn infertile soils into nutrient-rich dirt.
"These are the kinds of innovations I think we're going to see all over the country," Vilsack said.
He talked about his support for a "cap-and-trade" system to reduce carbon emissions, making companies that produce more carbon emissions than allowed under a cap buy carbon permits through a government auction. The profits could pay for new energy research.
Companies also could buy "carbon offsets" at a lower cost from farms, forests and other sources. It's those offsets that could create an economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers, Vilsack said, and biochar is an offset candidate.
He said other income-generating possibilities for farmers include biomass and biofuels.
"We're seeing more interest in renewable energy on the farms," he said.
Revitalizing rural America -- and making it possible to earn a good living through farming -- is a priority for his department, he said.
A recent survey showed that mid-sized family farms have declined in the last five years, he said, though there are about 100,000 more small vegetable, fruit and specialty product farms. One of his department's initiatives is a program to help create local supply chains for small farmers.
He also told the audience that, while the agriculture department's 2010 budget is light on money for research, there's a greater research emphasis in the 2011 budget.
Jim Amonette, a biochar conference attendee who works at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said he was impressed by Vilsack's address.
"It's nice to have a secretary of agriculture who knows what biochar is and understands the role agriculture can play in energy," he said.
Deborah Martin, a Boulder research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said she liked that Vilsack talked about the need for a worldwide approach to sustainability.
"He was terrific," she said. "He was well-educated and well-informed."
Vilsack gave the keynote address at the conference, which is the first major biochar gathering in the United States. Biochar, created when organic materials are burned in a low-oxygen environment, is touted as an environmentally friendly way to turn infertile soils into nutrient-rich dirt.
"These are the kinds of innovations I think we're going to see all over the country," Vilsack said.
He talked about his support for a "cap-and-trade" system to reduce carbon emissions, making companies that produce more carbon emissions than allowed under a cap buy carbon permits through a government auction. The profits could pay for new energy research.
Companies also could buy "carbon offsets" at a lower cost from farms, forests and other sources. It's those offsets that could create an economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers, Vilsack said, and biochar is an offset candidate.
He said other income-generating possibilities for farmers include biomass and biofuels.
"We're seeing more interest in renewable energy on the farms," he said.
Revitalizing rural America -- and making it possible to earn a good living through farming -- is a priority for his department, he said.
A recent survey showed that mid-sized family farms have declined in the last five years, he said, though there are about 100,000 more small vegetable, fruit and specialty product farms. One of his department's initiatives is a program to help create local supply chains for small farmers.
He also told the audience that, while the agriculture department's 2010 budget is light on money for research, there's a greater research emphasis in the 2011 budget.
Jim Amonette, a biochar conference attendee who works at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said he was impressed by Vilsack's address.
"It's nice to have a secretary of agriculture who knows what biochar is and understands the role agriculture can play in energy," he said.
Deborah Martin, a Boulder research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said she liked that Vilsack talked about the need for a worldwide approach to sustainability.
"He was terrific," she said. "He was well-educated and well-informed."
Climate change press coverage gets weird
For those of you not familiar with this period in Earth's history, the PETM is a very singular event in the Cenozoic (last 65 million years). It was the largest and most abrupt perturbation to the carbon cycle over that whole period, defined by an absolutely huge negative isotope spike. Although there are smaller analogs later in the Eocene, the size of the carbon flux that must have been brought into the ocean/atmosphere carbon cycle in that one event, is on a par with the entire reserve of conventional fossil fuels at present. A really big number – but exactly how big?
The story starts off innocently enough with a new paper by Richard Zeebe and colleagues in Nature Geoscience to tackle exactly this question. They use a carbon cycle model, tuned to conditions in the Paleocene, to constrain the amount of carbon that must have come into the system to cause both the sharp isotopic spike and a very clear change in the "carbonate compensation depth" (CCD) – this is the depth at which carbonates dissolve in sea water (a function of the pH, pressure, total carbon amount etc.). There is strong evidence that the the CCD rose hundreds of meters over the PETM – causing clear dissolution events in shallower ocean sediment cores. What Zeebe et al. come up with is that around 3000 Gt carbon must have been added to the system – a significant increase on the original estimates of about half that much made a decade or so ago, though less than some high end speculations.
Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don't fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we've been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.
Putting these two bits of evidence together is where it starts to get tricky.
First of all, how much does atmospheric CO2 rise if you add 3000 GtC to the system in a (geologically) short period of time? Zeebe et al. did this calculation and the answer is about 700 ppmv – quite a lot eh? However, that is a perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle – which they assume has a base CO2 level of 1000 ppm, and so you only get a 70% increase – i.e. not even a doubling of CO2. And since the forcing that goes along with an increase in CO2 is logarithmic, it is the percent change in CO2 that matters rather than the absolute increase. The radiative forcing associated with that is about 2.6 W/m2. Unfortunately, we don't (yet) have very good estimates of background CO2 levels in Paleocene. The proxies we do have suggest significantly higher values than today, but they aren't precise. Levels could have been less than 1000 ppm, or even significantly more.
If (and this is a key assumption that we'll get to later) this was the only forcing associated with the PETM event, how much warmer would we expect the planet to get? One might be tempted to use the standard 'Charney' climate sensitivity (2-4.5ºC per doubling of CO2) that is discussed so much in the IPCC reports. That would give you a mere 1.5-3ºC warming which appears inadequate. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.
In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of 'Target CO2'. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.
Now for the Paleocene, it is unlikely that changes in ice sheets were very relevant (there weren't any to speak of). But changes in vegetation, ozone, methane and aerosols (of various sorts) would certainly be expected. Estimates of the ESS taken from the Pliocene, or from the changes over the whole Cenozoic imply that the ESS is likely to be larger than the Charney sensitivity since vegetation, ozone and methane feedbacks are all amplifying. I'm on an upcoming paper that suggests a value about 50% bigger, while Jim Hansen has suggested a value about twice as big as Charney. That would give you an expected range of temperature increases of 2-5ºC (our estimate) or 3-6ºC (Hansen) (note that uncertainty bands are increasing here but the ranges are starting to overlap with the observations). ALl of this assumes that there are no huge non-linearities in climate sensitivity in radically different climates – something we aren't at all sure about either.
But let's go back to the first key assumption – that CO2 forcing is the only direct impact of the PETM event. The source of all this carbon has to satisfy two key constraints – it must be from a very depleted biogenic source and it needs to be relatively accessible. The leading candidate for this is methane hydrate – a kind of methane ice that is found in cold conditions and under pressure on continental margins – often capping large deposits of methane gas itself. Our information about such deposits in the Paleocene is sketchy to say the least, but there are plenty of ideas as to why a large outgassing of these deposits might have occurred (tectonic uplift in the proto-Indian ocean, volcanic activity in the North Atlantic, switches in deep ocean temperature due to the closure of key gateways into the Arctic etc.).
Putting aside the issue of the trigger though, we have the fascinating question of what happens to the methane that would be released in such a scenario. The standard assumption (used in the Zeebe et al paper) is that the methane would oxidise (to CO2) relatively quickly and so you don't need to worry about the details. But work that Drew Shindell and I did a few years ago suggested that this might not quite be true. We found that atmospheric chemistry feedbacks in such a circumstance could increase the impact of methane releases by a factor of 4 or so. While this isn't enough to sustain a high methane concentration for tens of thousands of years following an initial pulse, it might be enough to enhance the peak radiative forcing if the methane was being released continuously over a few thousand years. The increase in the case of a 3000 GtC pulse would be on the order of a couple of W/m2 – for as long as the methane was being released. That would be a significant boost to the CO2-only forcing given above – and enough (at least for relatively short parts of the PETM) to bring the temperature and forcing estimates into line.
Of course, much of this is speculative given the difficulty in working out what actually happened 55 million years ago. The press response to the Zeebe et al paper was, however, very predictable.
The problems probably started with the title of the paper "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" which on it's own might have been unproblematic. However, it was paired with a press release from Rice University that was titled "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong", containing the statement from Jerry Dickens that "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models".
Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for 'alarmist' global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that 'climate models are wrong' with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make (another press release from U. Hawaii was much better in that respect).
What might have been done differently?
First off, headlines and titles that simply confirm someone's prior belief (even if that belief is completely at odds with the substance of the paper) are a really bad idea. Many people do not go beyond the headline – they read it, they agree with it, they move on. Also one should avoid truisms. All 'models' are indeed wrong – they are models, not perfect representations of the real world. The real question is whether they are useful – what do they underestimate? overestimate? and are they sufficiently complete? Thus a much better title for the press release would have been more specific ""Global warming: Our best guess is likely too small" – and much less misinterpretable!
Secondly, a lot of the confusion is related to the use of the word 'model' itself. When people hear 'climate model', they generally think of the big ocean-atmosphere models run by GISS, NCAR or Hadley Centre etc. for the 20th Century climate and for future scenarios. The model used in Zeebe et al was not one of these, instead it was a relatively sophisticated carbon cycle model that tracks the different elements of the carbon cycle, but not the changes in climate. The conclusions of the study related to the sensitivity of the climate used the standard range of sensitivities from IPCC TAR (1.5 to 4.5ºC for a doubling of CO2), which have been constrained – not by climate models – but by observed climate changes. Thus nothing in the paper related to the commonly accepted 'climate models' at all, yet most of the commentary made the incorrect association.
To summarise, there is still a great deal of mystery about the PETM – the trigger, where the carbon came from and what happened to it – and the latest research hasn't tied up all the many loose ends. Whether the solution lies in something 'fundamental' as Dickens surmises (possibly related to our basic inability to explain the latitudinal gradients in any of the very warm climates) , or whether it's a combination of a different forcing function combined with more inclusive ideas about climate sensitivity, is yet to be determined. However, we can all agree that it remains a tantalisingly relevant episode of Earth history
The story starts off innocently enough with a new paper by Richard Zeebe and colleagues in Nature Geoscience to tackle exactly this question. They use a carbon cycle model, tuned to conditions in the Paleocene, to constrain the amount of carbon that must have come into the system to cause both the sharp isotopic spike and a very clear change in the "carbonate compensation depth" (CCD) – this is the depth at which carbonates dissolve in sea water (a function of the pH, pressure, total carbon amount etc.). There is strong evidence that the the CCD rose hundreds of meters over the PETM – causing clear dissolution events in shallower ocean sediment cores. What Zeebe et al. come up with is that around 3000 Gt carbon must have been added to the system – a significant increase on the original estimates of about half that much made a decade or so ago, though less than some high end speculations.
Temperature changes at the same time as this huge carbon spike were large too. Note that this is happening on a Paleocene background climate that we don't fully understand either – the polar amplification in very warm paleo-climates is much larger than we've been able to explain using standard models. Estimates range from 5 to 9 deg C warming (with some additional uncertainty due to potential problems with the proxy data) – smaller in the tropics than at higher latitudes.
Putting these two bits of evidence together is where it starts to get tricky.
First of all, how much does atmospheric CO2 rise if you add 3000 GtC to the system in a (geologically) short period of time? Zeebe et al. did this calculation and the answer is about 700 ppmv – quite a lot eh? However, that is a perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle – which they assume has a base CO2 level of 1000 ppm, and so you only get a 70% increase – i.e. not even a doubling of CO2. And since the forcing that goes along with an increase in CO2 is logarithmic, it is the percent change in CO2 that matters rather than the absolute increase. The radiative forcing associated with that is about 2.6 W/m2. Unfortunately, we don't (yet) have very good estimates of background CO2 levels in Paleocene. The proxies we do have suggest significantly higher values than today, but they aren't precise. Levels could have been less than 1000 ppm, or even significantly more.
If (and this is a key assumption that we'll get to later) this was the only forcing associated with the PETM event, how much warmer would we expect the planet to get? One might be tempted to use the standard 'Charney' climate sensitivity (2-4.5ºC per doubling of CO2) that is discussed so much in the IPCC reports. That would give you a mere 1.5-3ºC warming which appears inadequate. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.
In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of 'Target CO2'. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.
Now for the Paleocene, it is unlikely that changes in ice sheets were very relevant (there weren't any to speak of). But changes in vegetation, ozone, methane and aerosols (of various sorts) would certainly be expected. Estimates of the ESS taken from the Pliocene, or from the changes over the whole Cenozoic imply that the ESS is likely to be larger than the Charney sensitivity since vegetation, ozone and methane feedbacks are all amplifying. I'm on an upcoming paper that suggests a value about 50% bigger, while Jim Hansen has suggested a value about twice as big as Charney. That would give you an expected range of temperature increases of 2-5ºC (our estimate) or 3-6ºC (Hansen) (note that uncertainty bands are increasing here but the ranges are starting to overlap with the observations). ALl of this assumes that there are no huge non-linearities in climate sensitivity in radically different climates – something we aren't at all sure about either.
But let's go back to the first key assumption – that CO2 forcing is the only direct impact of the PETM event. The source of all this carbon has to satisfy two key constraints – it must be from a very depleted biogenic source and it needs to be relatively accessible. The leading candidate for this is methane hydrate – a kind of methane ice that is found in cold conditions and under pressure on continental margins – often capping large deposits of methane gas itself. Our information about such deposits in the Paleocene is sketchy to say the least, but there are plenty of ideas as to why a large outgassing of these deposits might have occurred (tectonic uplift in the proto-Indian ocean, volcanic activity in the North Atlantic, switches in deep ocean temperature due to the closure of key gateways into the Arctic etc.).
Putting aside the issue of the trigger though, we have the fascinating question of what happens to the methane that would be released in such a scenario. The standard assumption (used in the Zeebe et al paper) is that the methane would oxidise (to CO2) relatively quickly and so you don't need to worry about the details. But work that Drew Shindell and I did a few years ago suggested that this might not quite be true. We found that atmospheric chemistry feedbacks in such a circumstance could increase the impact of methane releases by a factor of 4 or so. While this isn't enough to sustain a high methane concentration for tens of thousands of years following an initial pulse, it might be enough to enhance the peak radiative forcing if the methane was being released continuously over a few thousand years. The increase in the case of a 3000 GtC pulse would be on the order of a couple of W/m2 – for as long as the methane was being released. That would be a significant boost to the CO2-only forcing given above – and enough (at least for relatively short parts of the PETM) to bring the temperature and forcing estimates into line.
Of course, much of this is speculative given the difficulty in working out what actually happened 55 million years ago. The press response to the Zeebe et al paper was, however, very predictable.
The problems probably started with the title of the paper "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" which on it's own might have been unproblematic. However, it was paired with a press release from Rice University that was titled "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong", containing the statement from Jerry Dickens that "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models".
Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for 'alarmist' global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that 'climate models are wrong' with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make (another press release from U. Hawaii was much better in that respect).
What might have been done differently?
First off, headlines and titles that simply confirm someone's prior belief (even if that belief is completely at odds with the substance of the paper) are a really bad idea. Many people do not go beyond the headline – they read it, they agree with it, they move on. Also one should avoid truisms. All 'models' are indeed wrong – they are models, not perfect representations of the real world. The real question is whether they are useful – what do they underestimate? overestimate? and are they sufficiently complete? Thus a much better title for the press release would have been more specific ""Global warming: Our best guess is likely too small" – and much less misinterpretable!
Secondly, a lot of the confusion is related to the use of the word 'model' itself. When people hear 'climate model', they generally think of the big ocean-atmosphere models run by GISS, NCAR or Hadley Centre etc. for the 20th Century climate and for future scenarios. The model used in Zeebe et al was not one of these, instead it was a relatively sophisticated carbon cycle model that tracks the different elements of the carbon cycle, but not the changes in climate. The conclusions of the study related to the sensitivity of the climate used the standard range of sensitivities from IPCC TAR (1.5 to 4.5ºC for a doubling of CO2), which have been constrained – not by climate models – but by observed climate changes. Thus nothing in the paper related to the commonly accepted 'climate models' at all, yet most of the commentary made the incorrect association.
To summarise, there is still a great deal of mystery about the PETM – the trigger, where the carbon came from and what happened to it – and the latest research hasn't tied up all the many loose ends. Whether the solution lies in something 'fundamental' as Dickens surmises (possibly related to our basic inability to explain the latitudinal gradients in any of the very warm climates) , or whether it's a combination of a different forcing function combined with more inclusive ideas about climate sensitivity, is yet to be determined. However, we can all agree that it remains a tantalisingly relevant episode of Earth history
Climate Change & National Security: A Tough Sell
Climate change is rarely featured on the front pages of top U.S. newspapers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times. As a gradually unfolding and large-scale event, often called a 'creeping' story, climate change typically lacks a tangible 'news hook.' Rather than the standard news items such as 'U.S. hostages are freed from North Korea' or 'missing South Carolina governor admits affair,' climate stories tend to be less pressing, more complicated, and have a longer time horizon, which makes them harder to justify as page one fare.
This makes a New York Times story on page A1 of the widely read Sunday edition on August 9 stand out. The story, by Times reporter John M. Broder, examined the potential national security implications of climate change, which is a facet of the climate issue that has been getting more attention at high levels of government.
While the story didn't offer much new information, it did highlight that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill as well as the Obama administration may be turning to national security concerns to bolster their pitch for controversial climate change legislation. The House passed a bill in late June to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, but the Senate has not yet unveiled its version of the legislation, which faces an uphill slog in that chamber. It remains to be seen whether framing climate change as a national security threat will win votes. I am skeptical.
Keep reading for more on the risk of climate change on national security and its impact on policymakers...
The Times story, with the headline "Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. National Security," reported on the Obama administration's growing alarm that by flooding coastlines, causing mass migrations, degrading the ability of lands to sustain large populations, and causing more intense storms, climate change could serve as a destabilizing force, one which the U.S. military may increasingly have to reckon with.
"Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response," the article stated.
This sort of portrayal is not new. Numerous reports have been written on climate change and security issues, including one [PDF] by 11 retired admirals and generals that was published in 2007 by CNA Corp. A book, "Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change," was published on the subject last year.
And in Washington, several Congressional committees have held hearings on climate change and national security, and legislation has spurred the executive branch to include climate change in long-term defense and intelligence planning.
Lawmakers, led by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) and joined by former Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, himself a former Navy secretary, have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for support for so-called "cap and trade" climate legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. According to the Times, Kerry has met with more than two-dozen wavering colleagues about the need to support such legislation due in part to national security concerns.
"This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House," the article stated.
While the potential is certainly there for national security issues to loom large in Senate debate on climate change legislation, I think there is more evidence to argue for the other side -- that national security concerns will remain at the periphery of this debate for some time to come, and perhaps rightly so.
Despite its considerable merits, the national security argument is unlikely to change many minds in large part because it shares many of the characteristics that make climate change a typical page A14 story rather than A1: it too plays out in a manner that is diffuse, long term, and lacks a sense of immediacy. The links between climate and conflict are rarely, if ever, straightforward. This does not mean that climate change cannot be a key factor, but rather that the interplay of factors that lead to a conflict or humanitarian crisis tend to be quite complex.
There are already many societal and environmental pressures, such as population growth, that are working to exacerbate security concerns in some regions. In addition, there is the matter of the decades-long time lag that exists between emissions reductions and the climate system's response. These issues raise the question of how justified it would be to rest the argument for a climate bill on national security grounds.
As Times reporter and blogger Andrew Revkin wrote yesterday, "Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming." Revkin raised the question of whether the prospect of additional climate-related instability relates more to Pentagon and State Department planning than it does to domestic climate legislation.
Furthermore, just as reporters face skepticism from their editors when they try to cover climate stories, Kerry and other elected officials are likely to encounter stiff resistance from their colleagues who are far more concerned with the economic plight of the people they represent than they are about whether the U.S. military will have to conduct more humanitarian interventions in 2050 due in part to climate change-related impacts.
This is not necessarily the lawmakers' fault.
As I've previously reported, social science research has shown that the human mind is hard-wired to prioritize immediate dangers and risks over long-term threats. We also tend to prefer immediate benefits, rather than the prospect of future rewards. Thus, many lawmakers and the constituents who elected them are hesitant to support taking action on climate change now since it could result in economic costs in the short term, despite the evidence that shows that addressing climate change now would reduce future risks.
For others, concerns about environmental and national security calamities may outweigh fears of economic disruption in the near term, and they may also agree with many economists who have said that tackling climate change sooner rather than later could prove to be an economic boon rather than a boondoggle. But they seem to be in the minority, at least in Washington.
The many psychological barriers to action on climate change are spelled out in a new report [PDF] from the American Psychological Association. I suggest that lawmakers read it before they decide that playing the national security card is the best approach to attracting more votes for a plan to address climate change.
This makes a New York Times story on page A1 of the widely read Sunday edition on August 9 stand out. The story, by Times reporter John M. Broder, examined the potential national security implications of climate change, which is a facet of the climate issue that has been getting more attention at high levels of government.
While the story didn't offer much new information, it did highlight that some lawmakers on Capitol Hill as well as the Obama administration may be turning to national security concerns to bolster their pitch for controversial climate change legislation. The House passed a bill in late June to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, but the Senate has not yet unveiled its version of the legislation, which faces an uphill slog in that chamber. It remains to be seen whether framing climate change as a national security threat will win votes. I am skeptical.
Keep reading for more on the risk of climate change on national security and its impact on policymakers...
The Times story, with the headline "Climate Change Seen as a Threat to U.S. National Security," reported on the Obama administration's growing alarm that by flooding coastlines, causing mass migrations, degrading the ability of lands to sustain large populations, and causing more intense storms, climate change could serve as a destabilizing force, one which the U.S. military may increasingly have to reckon with.
"Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response," the article stated.
This sort of portrayal is not new. Numerous reports have been written on climate change and security issues, including one [PDF] by 11 retired admirals and generals that was published in 2007 by CNA Corp. A book, "Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change," was published on the subject last year.
And in Washington, several Congressional committees have held hearings on climate change and national security, and legislation has spurred the executive branch to include climate change in long-term defense and intelligence planning.
Lawmakers, led by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) and joined by former Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, himself a former Navy secretary, have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for support for so-called "cap and trade" climate legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. According to the Times, Kerry has met with more than two-dozen wavering colleagues about the need to support such legislation due in part to national security concerns.
"This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House," the article stated.
While the potential is certainly there for national security issues to loom large in Senate debate on climate change legislation, I think there is more evidence to argue for the other side -- that national security concerns will remain at the periphery of this debate for some time to come, and perhaps rightly so.
Despite its considerable merits, the national security argument is unlikely to change many minds in large part because it shares many of the characteristics that make climate change a typical page A14 story rather than A1: it too plays out in a manner that is diffuse, long term, and lacks a sense of immediacy. The links between climate and conflict are rarely, if ever, straightforward. This does not mean that climate change cannot be a key factor, but rather that the interplay of factors that lead to a conflict or humanitarian crisis tend to be quite complex.
There are already many societal and environmental pressures, such as population growth, that are working to exacerbate security concerns in some regions. In addition, there is the matter of the decades-long time lag that exists between emissions reductions and the climate system's response. These issues raise the question of how justified it would be to rest the argument for a climate bill on national security grounds.
As Times reporter and blogger Andrew Revkin wrote yesterday, "Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming." Revkin raised the question of whether the prospect of additional climate-related instability relates more to Pentagon and State Department planning than it does to domestic climate legislation.
Furthermore, just as reporters face skepticism from their editors when they try to cover climate stories, Kerry and other elected officials are likely to encounter stiff resistance from their colleagues who are far more concerned with the economic plight of the people they represent than they are about whether the U.S. military will have to conduct more humanitarian interventions in 2050 due in part to climate change-related impacts.
This is not necessarily the lawmakers' fault.
As I've previously reported, social science research has shown that the human mind is hard-wired to prioritize immediate dangers and risks over long-term threats. We also tend to prefer immediate benefits, rather than the prospect of future rewards. Thus, many lawmakers and the constituents who elected them are hesitant to support taking action on climate change now since it could result in economic costs in the short term, despite the evidence that shows that addressing climate change now would reduce future risks.
For others, concerns about environmental and national security calamities may outweigh fears of economic disruption in the near term, and they may also agree with many economists who have said that tackling climate change sooner rather than later could prove to be an economic boon rather than a boondoggle. But they seem to be in the minority, at least in Washington.
The many psychological barriers to action on climate change are spelled out in a new report [PDF] from the American Psychological Association. I suggest that lawmakers read it before they decide that playing the national security card is the best approach to attracting more votes for a plan to address climate change.
Climate change skeptics uniting in Springfield, Mo.
Ron Boyer believes climate change skeptics have gotten a raw deal — in some academic circles, in Congress and certainly in the press.That's why Boyer, a member of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission, is sponsoring a meeting Thursday in Springfield that he says "will highlight the fallacy of anthropogenic global warming proponents' apocalyptic dogma.""The more I looked into this, I found more empirical evidence that the Earth is actually cooling," said Boyer, who runs an environmental and agricultural consulting firm in Fair Grove, Mo.The conference, sponsored by Boyer's group, Scientists for Truth, has lured a veritable who's who of climate change skeptics and contrarians as guest speakers. Among them: Dennis T. Avery, co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years"; Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology for the Weather Channel; and Marc Morano, the former spokesman for U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Boyer said the conference is a result of his decision to push back against those he considers "global warming alarmists" and give skeptics a much-needed public platform."I think the case for this side is so much stronger, but you don't see much about it in the paper and television," Boyer said.
Most scientists believe that Earth is warming due to the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, many have predicted the world will experience more flooding, droughts and other cataclysmic events unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Two years ago, members of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that Earth's most recent warming cycle was the result of human activities.While there is disagreement among scientists about the extent and pace of climate change and what to do about it, many have backed the IPCC's conclusions."There's not much debate within the majority of the scientific community," said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who served on the IPCC and wrote some of its early assessments. "Sure, an interesting point will come up and we'll poke at it, but that's our life."Some skeptics, however, continue to challenge the basic science, often pointing to solar activity or swings in ocean cycles as the likely culprits behind current climate shifts.They are vehemently opposed to the climate change legislation that's expected to go to the Senate for a vote this fall that would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.Dan Lashoff, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said political ideology — not science — seems to be the common thread among the Springfield conference speakers, some of whom are slated to talk about climate change legislation."I think most opponents of this legislation have moved past the debate over science," Lashoff said. "Most of the organized opposition is focusing on the economics. But some of these guys, I guess, just won't give up."One of the key voices in the skeptic community who doesn't seem remotely ready to give up is Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, a skeptic website and news service.He is perhaps best known for compiling a Senate committee report that contains the names of more than 700 international scientists he describes as climate change dissenters. Environmental advocates have questioned the credentials of some of the people on that list.During his speech in Springfield, Morano says, he'll challenge the notion that there's a consensus among scientists about climate change. Instead, the number of skeptics — among scientists and the general public — "is skyrocketing," he said."This is a grass-roots rebellion, and the Springfield conference is a great example," Morano said. Boyer said last week that about 120 people have signed up for the conference, and he's hoping about double that number show up. He said he has been contacted by several area teachers planning to bring students to the event being held at the Ramada Oasis Hotel.The conference is a test of sorts. If there's a good turnout and the Senate fails to take up the legislation, Boyer said, he might organize additional conferences, with Dallas likely being the next host city.Boyer emphasized that his consulting company is paying for the conference and that his views about climate change shouldn't be construed as a position of the state Air Conservation Commission, which develops Missouri's clean air policies. Three members of the air commission either declined to discuss their personal views about climate change or didn't return phone calls. Another, Jack Baker, said he was undecided about what to do about climate change. "I guess we really need to be careful when it comes to the environment," he said. "We don't want to destroy it, but we don't want to hurt our economy, either."Boyer, a former top official in the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, was appointed to the commission by former Gov. Matt Blunt in March 2008. Last fall, he rankled some environmentalists when he made a presentation at a commission meeting that laid out a case for why the state's odor regulations shouldn't be changed. Boyer argued that animal agriculture was under attack and that "animal rights activists, anti-capitalists, radical environmentalists, activist judges, vegetarians, vegans and locavores had piled on."Nonetheless, Boyer says he invites members of Missouri's environmental groups to attend the conference, which he says welcomes dissenting opinions.Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said she was not aware of any coalition members planning to attend the conference."When Missouri is trying to position itself with the science and technology sector, it doesn't help to have anti-science folks in such prominent positions," Smith said of Boyer. "It doesn't do much for our reputation."
Boyer said the conference is a result of his decision to push back against those he considers "global warming alarmists" and give skeptics a much-needed public platform."I think the case for this side is so much stronger, but you don't see much about it in the paper and television," Boyer said.
Most scientists believe that Earth is warming due to the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, many have predicted the world will experience more flooding, droughts and other cataclysmic events unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Two years ago, members of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that Earth's most recent warming cycle was the result of human activities.While there is disagreement among scientists about the extent and pace of climate change and what to do about it, many have backed the IPCC's conclusions."There's not much debate within the majority of the scientific community," said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who served on the IPCC and wrote some of its early assessments. "Sure, an interesting point will come up and we'll poke at it, but that's our life."Some skeptics, however, continue to challenge the basic science, often pointing to solar activity or swings in ocean cycles as the likely culprits behind current climate shifts.They are vehemently opposed to the climate change legislation that's expected to go to the Senate for a vote this fall that would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.Dan Lashoff, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, said political ideology — not science — seems to be the common thread among the Springfield conference speakers, some of whom are slated to talk about climate change legislation."I think most opponents of this legislation have moved past the debate over science," Lashoff said. "Most of the organized opposition is focusing on the economics. But some of these guys, I guess, just won't give up."One of the key voices in the skeptic community who doesn't seem remotely ready to give up is Morano, who runs ClimateDepot.com, a skeptic website and news service.He is perhaps best known for compiling a Senate committee report that contains the names of more than 700 international scientists he describes as climate change dissenters. Environmental advocates have questioned the credentials of some of the people on that list.During his speech in Springfield, Morano says, he'll challenge the notion that there's a consensus among scientists about climate change. Instead, the number of skeptics — among scientists and the general public — "is skyrocketing," he said."This is a grass-roots rebellion, and the Springfield conference is a great example," Morano said. Boyer said last week that about 120 people have signed up for the conference, and he's hoping about double that number show up. He said he has been contacted by several area teachers planning to bring students to the event being held at the Ramada Oasis Hotel.The conference is a test of sorts. If there's a good turnout and the Senate fails to take up the legislation, Boyer said, he might organize additional conferences, with Dallas likely being the next host city.Boyer emphasized that his consulting company is paying for the conference and that his views about climate change shouldn't be construed as a position of the state Air Conservation Commission, which develops Missouri's clean air policies. Three members of the air commission either declined to discuss their personal views about climate change or didn't return phone calls. Another, Jack Baker, said he was undecided about what to do about climate change. "I guess we really need to be careful when it comes to the environment," he said. "We don't want to destroy it, but we don't want to hurt our economy, either."Boyer, a former top official in the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, was appointed to the commission by former Gov. Matt Blunt in March 2008. Last fall, he rankled some environmentalists when he made a presentation at a commission meeting that laid out a case for why the state's odor regulations shouldn't be changed. Boyer argued that animal agriculture was under attack and that "animal rights activists, anti-capitalists, radical environmentalists, activist judges, vegetarians, vegans and locavores had piled on."Nonetheless, Boyer says he invites members of Missouri's environmental groups to attend the conference, which he says welcomes dissenting opinions.Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said she was not aware of any coalition members planning to attend the conference."When Missouri is trying to position itself with the science and technology sector, it doesn't help to have anti-science folks in such prominent positions," Smith said of Boyer. "It doesn't do much for our reputation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)