The American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding its annual meeting, so you can expect a flurry of climate announcements—though not as much as at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (see here and here). The Washington Post and AFP are reporting:
It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday.
Okay, this is what I’ve been saying for a few years now, but it’s good to hear more and more leading climate scientists besides James Hansen and John Holdren being blunt with the public on this (see links below for others who are now telling it like it is). In this case, it’s Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who said
We are basically looking now at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations.
The source of Field’s concern—what else could it be but our old nemesis, amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks:
Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere as the result of “feedback loops” that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists on a panel at the meeting.
The permafrost holds 1 trillion tons of carbon, and as much as 10 percent of that could be released this century, Field said. Melting permafrost also releases methane, which is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
“It’s a vicious cycle of feedback where warming causes the release of carbon from permafrost, which causes more warming, which causes more release from permafrost,” Field said.
[See “Tundra Part 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss” and links therein, here.]
Evidence is also accumulating that terrestrial and marine ecosystems cannot remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as earlier estimates suggested, Field said.
In the oceans, warmer weather is driving stronger winds that are exposing deeper layers of water, which are already saturated with carbon and not as able to absorb as much from the atmosphere. The carbon is making the oceans more acidic, which also reduces their ability to absorb carbon.
[See “The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide,” here.]
On land, rising carbon dioxide levels had been expected to boost plant growth and result in greater sequestration of carbon dioxide. As plants undergo photosynthesis to draw energy from the sun, carbon is drawn out of the atmosphere and trapped in the plant matter. But especially in northern latitudes, this effect may be offset significantly by the fact that vegetation-covered land absorbs much more of the sun’s heat than snow-covered terrain, said scientists on the panel.
Earlier snowmelt, the shrinking arctic ice cover and the northward spread of vegetation are causing the Northern Hemisphere to absorb, rather than reflect, more of the sun’s energy and reinforce the warming trend.
While it takes a relatively long time for plants to take carbon out of the atmosphere, that carbon can be released rapidly by wildfires, which contribute about a third as much carbon to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels, according to a paper Field co-authored.
Fires such as the recent deadly blazes in southern Australia have increased in recent years, and that trend is expected to continue, Field said. Warmer weather, earlier snowmelt, drought and beetle infestations facilitated by warmer climates are all contributing to the rising number of fires linked to climate change. Across large swaths of the United States and Canada, bark beetles have killed many mature trees, making forests more flammable. And tropical rain forests that were not susceptible to forest fires in the past are likely to become drier as temperatures rise, growing more vulnerable.
[See “Science: Global warming is killing U.S. trees, a dangerous carbon-cycle feedback,” here.]
Preventing deforestation in the tropics is more important than in northern latitudes, the panel agreed, since lush tropical forests sequester more carbon than sparser northern forests. And deforestation in northern areas has benefits, since larger areas end up covered in exposed, heat-reflecting snow.
Many scientists and policymakers are advocating increased incentives for preserving tropical forests, especially in the face of demand for clearing forest to grow biofuel crops such as soy. Promoting biofuels without also creating forest-preservation incentives would be “like weatherizing your house and deliberately keeping your windows open,” said Peter Frumhoff, chief of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate program. “It’s just not a smart policy.”
Field said the U.N. panel’s next assessment of Earth’s climate trends, scheduled for release in 2014, will for the first time incorporate policy proposals. It will also include complicated models of interconnected ecosystem feedbacks.
The panel’s last report noted that preliminary knowledge of such feedbacks suggested that an additional 100 billion to 500 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions would have to be prevented in the next century to avoid dangerous global warming. Currently, about 10 billion tons of carbon are emitted each year.
Finally, in the Fifth Assessment, the IPCC may tell the public what they need to hear. The final paragraph above is among the most important conclusions from the Fourth Assessment, but the IPCC buried the lede, as I have repeatedly pointed out (see here). And from the Yahoo story:
Field is co-chair of the group charged with assessing the impacts of climate change on social, economic and natural systems for the IPCC’s fifth assessment due in 2014.
The 2007 fourth assessment presented at a “very conservative range of climate outcomes” but the next report will “include futures with a lot more warming,” Field said.
“We now know that, without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought.”
The time to act is now.
[Side semantic note: In the Yahoo article, Field is quoted saying, “Tropical forests are essentially inflammable. You couldn’t get a fire to burn there if you tried. But if they dry out just a little bit, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires.” Nope. Inflammable means the same thing as flammable—see here.]
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Threaded
Backcut Posted 9:32 am
18 Feb 2009
Where's your solution to our dying forests, folks?!?! C'mon, the clock is ticking and the bark beetles are already stirring in some western areas.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:31 am
18 Feb 2009
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:27 pm
18 Feb 2009
Why are you bugging Grist about it anyway? Forest fuels management is a local or regional issue that involves loads of public education to get anywhere. As a global issue it's one of those tsk, tsk, matters like arctic methane release. It can ruin all your tomorrows but there's little you can do today to fix it.
Bug your neighbors who won't clear fire lanes around their houses.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:11 pm
18 Feb 2009
But, of course, THAT option has already been eliminated because someone might profit from it.
I just want people to be clear about what is at stake and what we are doing (and not doing) about this massive ongoing disaster.
While we were progressive enough to vote in a new paradigm, we're still stuck in the last millenium on saving our forests, ignoring science and embracing destructive wildfires.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
19 Feb 2009
"complicated models of interconnected ecosystem feedbacks" are needed now, 2014 will almost surely be too late to cancel the exponential GHG climate change curve with a commercial exponential renewable energy/organic ag growth curve.
We need this research now, you might want to demand that Joe and maybe enlist as many scientists and activists as you can to do the same. Mass delusional media constructed collective consciousness needs a jolt of reality.
BTW backcut, since when has profit motivated commercial logging ever had any positive effect? You are barking up the wrong tree again with your "free" market talking point spiel. only a revived CCC, public works job stimulating plan will help save our natural "infrastructure".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:33 am
19 Feb 2009
Remember, wildfires are NEVER good for the environment.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
19 Feb 2009
It can't. Since you want to stick with for profit forestry, it is your responsibility to explain how. Not mine.
The current procedure for commercial logging doesn't even specify burning slash, much less recycling it safely and doing the same with unwanted dead wood. As you have said many times, it's not profitable.
You are stuck with doing more than damning "preservationists", as is your usual shtick. You have to propose some way that for profit logging could be reformed and regulated. And since you are a reagan revolutionary when it comes to government regulation, you are stuck on the horns of self-contradiction.
As are all who still champion "free" market corporatist lobbyist planned economy, over government regulated really free market economy, steered away from corporate monopolist driven disaster. The huge collective disaster composed of all the big disasters related to deregulation.
Climate, economic, foreign policy/national security, energy, health, ..and on and on..disaster after disaster all rolling into one big "greed is good" end of life as we know it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:38 am
19 Feb 2009
I just know that we CAN save our forests from the worst impacts of climate change. It's up to the Obama Administration to respond to this disaster. I'm just not seeing ANY solution coming from you guys.
Martyrdom for our forests isn't an idea the general public are going to like. The clock is still ticking, folks. An incident like we've seen in Australia is inevitable. What will Obama do about it?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:12 am
19 Feb 2009
The fact that you can't see that is not our fault, maybe it's your reagan revolution blinders?
Again, you worked for industry, you need to explain how we can take the same inaction, letting industry regulate itself, but expect a different result. The rehabilitation of our forests.
We have given up on unregulated logging industry forest "greed is good" management. You seem to think it is the only way to proceed.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:44 am
19 Feb 2009
There is no one-size-fits-all solution and THAT'S why we aren't hearing anything coming from the left on this forest emergency. To many people, it's just not politically palatable to do what it will take to save our forests. Also, they just aren't progressive enough in their thinking to throw away their partisan politics in favor of sound science.
Unfortunately, our forests will suffer horribly, billions in assets will go up in smoke and people will die, just like in Australia. History will say that we did have the chance to save those forests but, emotional beliefs trumped science.
Again!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:50 am
19 Feb 2009
I have no financial stake in this, other than wanting healthy, resilient dynamic forest ecosystems for me to photograph. Also, I'd like my home in the forest to not burn up in the next firestorm the Feds have planned where I live.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:34 am
19 Feb 2009
I've only seen the same old "free" market only- industry-can-save-the-forests anti-environmentalist rhetoric, eventually devolving into predictions of armageddon placing all the blame on preservationist liberal treehuggers.
You have already admitted that the logging industry won't recycle waste wood because there's no profit in it. The only alternative is government investment in not-for-profit programs like the CCC to do the job of forest fire storm prevention.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 7:43 am
19 Feb 2009
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink