Saturday, December 10, 2005
A Livermore Report, Global Warming and the Gulf Stream - HJ Response
DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Modeling of long-term fossil fuel consumption shows 14.5 degree hike in temperature.
LIVERMORE, Calif. – If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business as usual manner for the next several centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.
These are the stunning results of climate and carbon cycle model simulations conducted by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. By using a coupled climate and carbon cycle model to look at global climate and carbon cycle changes, the scientists found that the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet's available fossil fuels by the year 2300.
The jump in temperature would have alarming consequences for the polar ice caps and the ocean, said lead author Govindasamy Bala of the Laboratory's Energy and Environment Directorate.
In the polar regions alone, the temperature would spike more than 20 degrees Celsius, forcing the land in the region to change from ice and tundra to boreal forests.
"The temperature estimate is actually conservative because the model didn't take into consideration changing land use such as deforestation and build out of cities into outlying wilderness areas," Bala said.
Today's level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 380 parts per million (ppm). By the year 2300, the model predicts that amount would nearly quadruple to 1,423 ppm.
In the simulations, soil and living biomass are net carbon sinks, which would extract a significant amount of carbon dioxide that otherwise, would be remaining in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, the real scenario might be a bit different.
"The land ecosystem would not take up as much carbon dioxide as the model assumes," Bala said. "In fact in the model, it takes up much more carbon than it would in the real world because the model did not have nitrogen/nutrient limitations to uptake. We also didn't take into account land use changes, such as the clearing of forests."
The model shows that ocean uptake of CO2 begins to decrease in the 22nd and 23rd centuries due to the warming of the ocean surface that drives CO2 fluctuations out of the ocean. It takes longer for the ocean to absorb CO2 than biomass and soil.
By the year 2300, about 38 percent and 17 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of all fossil fuels are taken up by land and the ocean, respectively. The remaining 45 percent stays in the atmosphere.
Whether carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere or the ocean, eventually about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide will end up in the ocean in a form that will make the ocean more acidic. While the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, it could produce adverse climate change. When it enters the ocean, the acidification could be harmful to marine life.
The models predict quite a drastic change not only in the temperature of the oceans but also in its acidity content, that would become especially harmful for marine organisms with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate.
Calcium carbonate organisms, such as coral, serve as climate-stabilizers. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, earlier Livermore research found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.
"The doubled-CO2 climate that scientists have warned about for decades is beginning to look like a goal we might attain if we work hard to limit CO2 emissions, rather than the terrible outcome that might occur if we do nothing," said Ken Caldeira, of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution and one of the other authors.
Bala said the most drastic changes during the 300-year period would be during the 22nd century in which precipitation change, an increase in atmospheric precipitable water and a decrease in sea ice size are the largest when emissions rates are the highest. During the model runs, sea ice cover disappears almost completely in the northern hemisphere by the year 2150 during northern hemisphere summers.
"We took a very holistic view," Bala said. "What if we burn everything? It will be a wake up call in climate change."
As for the global warming skeptics, Bala said the proof is already evident.
"Even if people don't believe in it today, the evidence will be there in 20 years," he said. "These are long-term problems."
He pointed to the 2003 European heat wave, and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as examples of extreme climate change.
"We definitely know we are going to warm over the next 300 years," he said. "In reality, we may be worse off than we predict."
Howard Johnson’s response:
There is no question that increased CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to possible global warming. Unless they just left it out, Livermore missed a couple of important factors that could radically alter their predictions. First, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already had a noticeable effect on the oceans. Blooms of algae are increasing in the worlds oceans. Since they feed on CO2 it acts almost like fertilizer and is consumed in the process. This reduces the amount of CO2 in the oceans AND in the atmosphere. Problem is that increased algae blooms are not really healthy for the marine environment.
Second, all plant life uses CO2 from the atmosphere, not just ocean or fresh water algae. The increase in CO2 acts like fertilizer to land plants as well. Botanists have already noted increases in growth rates for many plant species which, in turn, removes CO2 from the air faster than at lower levels. This is not just a simple cause and effect scenario. Life systems, heat exchange systems, sea water flow systems and atmospheric energy transport systems are extremely complex, particularly on a global scale. Even weather systems are presently far too complex for the most powerful computer simulations to predict accurately more than a few minutes in advance. How do we expect simulations to accurately predict infinitely more complex systems over large periods of time. It would be like predicting a year in advance the force and path of a specific hurricane long before it ever appeared.
Third, the one real danger facing us in the near future is possible changes in ocean currents caused by increased heat energy in the atmosphere. The so called, "Atlantic conveyer" is the system of ocean currents that includes the Gulf Stream (takes warm, high salinity water north to England and Scandinavia) and the Labrador current (takes cold, low salinity water down beneath the gulf stream and back south). This system has a huge effect on weather patterns all over the northern hemisphere. Many scientists believe this system is so delicately balanced that a slight change in atmospheric energy could drastically alter and possibly even reverse it’s flow. The result could be a Europe with weather like Greenland and a North America with weather like North Africa. Similar dramatic changes could be in store for ocean current systems all over the globe.
Recent studies of the gulf stream indicate that indeed, it has been slowing for the last twenty years. Scientists from Cambridge University have confirmed that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and this is likely to bring much colder temperatures to Europe within a few years. According to their report, "The weakening is significant: the Gulf Stream is flowing at a quarter of the strength that was present five years ago. This is supposedly happening because gigantic chimneys of cold water that were sinking from the surface to the sea bed off Greenland have disappeared. These chimneys could be one of the key engines of world climate as we know it today, and their disappearance signals the possible beginning of a great catastrophe."
(The author of the report makes positive, factual statements about ideas that are only reasonable guesses or theories. Ocean current systems are far too complex for such unequivocal statements. Thus my insertion of the words in bold italics. )
This type of change in the Gulf Stream may actually have happened when the "Little Ice Age" hit Europe in the 1600s with many failed crops and much starvation. "Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples."
Not everyone agrees with these scenarios, but not everyone agrees with any scenario. The fact is, as we convert the carbon in any fossil fuel to CO2, we deplete the oxygen in the atmosphere and increase the CO2 and no one other than me ever mentions the depletion of oxygen. It is interesting to note that for each thousand tons of carbon oxidized to carbon dioxide, four thousand tons of oxygen is removed from the atmosphere and is replaced with five thousand tons of CO2 In all the concern about CO2 I have never noticed a single mention of that fact. Man is actually reversing the process where plant life converted atmospheric CO2 to the huge sink of uncombined carbon we call fossil fuel and the oxygen so necessary for animal life. One other thing that is never mentioned is if all fossil fuels were consumed, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere for animals to breathe.
I’d like to ask the researchers at Livermore why they didn’t talk about or study these.
For links to all of Howard Johnson’s sites Click here
To contact author, Howard Johnson Click Here! ¶ 7:59 AM
Modeling of long-term fossil fuel consumption shows 14.5 degree hike in temperature.
LIVERMORE, Calif. – If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business as usual manner for the next several centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.
These are the stunning results of climate and carbon cycle model simulations conducted by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. By using a coupled climate and carbon cycle model to look at global climate and carbon cycle changes, the scientists found that the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet's available fossil fuels by the year 2300.
The jump in temperature would have alarming consequences for the polar ice caps and the ocean, said lead author Govindasamy Bala of the Laboratory's Energy and Environment Directorate.
In the polar regions alone, the temperature would spike more than 20 degrees Celsius, forcing the land in the region to change from ice and tundra to boreal forests.
"The temperature estimate is actually conservative because the model didn't take into consideration changing land use such as deforestation and build out of cities into outlying wilderness areas," Bala said.
Today's level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 380 parts per million (ppm). By the year 2300, the model predicts that amount would nearly quadruple to 1,423 ppm.
In the simulations, soil and living biomass are net carbon sinks, which would extract a significant amount of carbon dioxide that otherwise, would be remaining in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, the real scenario might be a bit different.
"The land ecosystem would not take up as much carbon dioxide as the model assumes," Bala said. "In fact in the model, it takes up much more carbon than it would in the real world because the model did not have nitrogen/nutrient limitations to uptake. We also didn't take into account land use changes, such as the clearing of forests."
The model shows that ocean uptake of CO2 begins to decrease in the 22nd and 23rd centuries due to the warming of the ocean surface that drives CO2 fluctuations out of the ocean. It takes longer for the ocean to absorb CO2 than biomass and soil.
By the year 2300, about 38 percent and 17 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of all fossil fuels are taken up by land and the ocean, respectively. The remaining 45 percent stays in the atmosphere.
Whether carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere or the ocean, eventually about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide will end up in the ocean in a form that will make the ocean more acidic. While the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, it could produce adverse climate change. When it enters the ocean, the acidification could be harmful to marine life.
The models predict quite a drastic change not only in the temperature of the oceans but also in its acidity content, that would become especially harmful for marine organisms with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate.
Calcium carbonate organisms, such as coral, serve as climate-stabilizers. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, earlier Livermore research found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.
"The doubled-CO2 climate that scientists have warned about for decades is beginning to look like a goal we might attain if we work hard to limit CO2 emissions, rather than the terrible outcome that might occur if we do nothing," said Ken Caldeira, of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution and one of the other authors.
Bala said the most drastic changes during the 300-year period would be during the 22nd century in which precipitation change, an increase in atmospheric precipitable water and a decrease in sea ice size are the largest when emissions rates are the highest. During the model runs, sea ice cover disappears almost completely in the northern hemisphere by the year 2150 during northern hemisphere summers.
"We took a very holistic view," Bala said. "What if we burn everything? It will be a wake up call in climate change."
As for the global warming skeptics, Bala said the proof is already evident.
"Even if people don't believe in it today, the evidence will be there in 20 years," he said. "These are long-term problems."
He pointed to the 2003 European heat wave, and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as examples of extreme climate change.
"We definitely know we are going to warm over the next 300 years," he said. "In reality, we may be worse off than we predict."
Howard Johnson’s response:
There is no question that increased CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to possible global warming. Unless they just left it out, Livermore missed a couple of important factors that could radically alter their predictions. First, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already had a noticeable effect on the oceans. Blooms of algae are increasing in the worlds oceans. Since they feed on CO2 it acts almost like fertilizer and is consumed in the process. This reduces the amount of CO2 in the oceans AND in the atmosphere. Problem is that increased algae blooms are not really healthy for the marine environment.
Second, all plant life uses CO2 from the atmosphere, not just ocean or fresh water algae. The increase in CO2 acts like fertilizer to land plants as well. Botanists have already noted increases in growth rates for many plant species which, in turn, removes CO2 from the air faster than at lower levels. This is not just a simple cause and effect scenario. Life systems, heat exchange systems, sea water flow systems and atmospheric energy transport systems are extremely complex, particularly on a global scale. Even weather systems are presently far too complex for the most powerful computer simulations to predict accurately more than a few minutes in advance. How do we expect simulations to accurately predict infinitely more complex systems over large periods of time. It would be like predicting a year in advance the force and path of a specific hurricane long before it ever appeared.
Third, the one real danger facing us in the near future is possible changes in ocean currents caused by increased heat energy in the atmosphere. The so called, "Atlantic conveyer" is the system of ocean currents that includes the Gulf Stream (takes warm, high salinity water north to England and Scandinavia) and the Labrador current (takes cold, low salinity water down beneath the gulf stream and back south). This system has a huge effect on weather patterns all over the northern hemisphere. Many scientists believe this system is so delicately balanced that a slight change in atmospheric energy could drastically alter and possibly even reverse it’s flow. The result could be a Europe with weather like Greenland and a North America with weather like North Africa. Similar dramatic changes could be in store for ocean current systems all over the globe.
Recent studies of the gulf stream indicate that indeed, it has been slowing for the last twenty years. Scientists from Cambridge University have confirmed that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and this is likely to bring much colder temperatures to Europe within a few years. According to their report, "The weakening is significant: the Gulf Stream is flowing at a quarter of the strength that was present five years ago. This is supposedly happening because gigantic chimneys of cold water that were sinking from the surface to the sea bed off Greenland have disappeared. These chimneys could be one of the key engines of world climate as we know it today, and their disappearance signals the possible beginning of a great catastrophe."
(The author of the report makes positive, factual statements about ideas that are only reasonable guesses or theories. Ocean current systems are far too complex for such unequivocal statements. Thus my insertion of the words in bold italics. )
This type of change in the Gulf Stream may actually have happened when the "Little Ice Age" hit Europe in the 1600s with many failed crops and much starvation. "Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples."
Not everyone agrees with these scenarios, but not everyone agrees with any scenario. The fact is, as we convert the carbon in any fossil fuel to CO2, we deplete the oxygen in the atmosphere and increase the CO2 and no one other than me ever mentions the depletion of oxygen. It is interesting to note that for each thousand tons of carbon oxidized to carbon dioxide, four thousand tons of oxygen is removed from the atmosphere and is replaced with five thousand tons of CO2 In all the concern about CO2 I have never noticed a single mention of that fact. Man is actually reversing the process where plant life converted atmospheric CO2 to the huge sink of uncombined carbon we call fossil fuel and the oxygen so necessary for animal life. One other thing that is never mentioned is if all fossil fuels were consumed, there would be no oxygen in the atmosphere for animals to breathe.
I’d like to ask the researchers at Livermore why they didn’t talk about or study these.
For links to all of Howard Johnson’s sites Click here
To contact author, Howard Johnson Click Here! ¶ 7:59 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Most of what you say is correct, except that CO2 is not really a fertilizer. As the piece you comment on notes, primary production (the process that consumes CO2) often is limited by OTHER nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus. THus, simply adding CO2 does not always result in increased primary production (CO2 uptake). Moreover, there are many findings that suggest acceleration of decomposition, the opposing process that puts CO2 BACK INTO the atmosphere, with the suite of global changes that are now well understood and documented.
You also fail to note that, since the 2001 Intergovernmetnal Panel on CLimate Change report was released, their "worst case" scenarios have now been shown to have been TOO MODERATE. Climate change has already been documented in substantive ways, but all of the models to date have worked with a 2X CO2 scenarios, whereas the pace of change now suggests that 3X or even 4X scenarios are more realistic.
I'm not sure what position you are taking here, but if it is one similar to that of the Bush administration that more study is needed before any action is taken because of possible threats to the economy, I'd suggest you read up on some of the more recent findings. Climate change is real and with us now, and demands serious response from our government. To do otherwise is immoral and incoonsiderate of future generations.
Finaly, with respect to your comments about oxygen, while this stoichiometric (constant ratio) relationship between O2 and CO2 is of course true, since O2 accounts for 21% of the atmosphere compared to only 3% or so for CO2, a simple calculation will show that the kinds of changes we are talking about with respect to CO2 will not have a large impact on atmospheric O2. Swings in O2 in the past have been responsive to much larger CO2 forcings, such as those associated with millennium-scale changes in the proportion of C in carbonate rocks.
You also fail to note that, since the 2001 Intergovernmetnal Panel on CLimate Change report was released, their "worst case" scenarios have now been shown to have been TOO MODERATE. Climate change has already been documented in substantive ways, but all of the models to date have worked with a 2X CO2 scenarios, whereas the pace of change now suggests that 3X or even 4X scenarios are more realistic.
I'm not sure what position you are taking here, but if it is one similar to that of the Bush administration that more study is needed before any action is taken because of possible threats to the economy, I'd suggest you read up on some of the more recent findings. Climate change is real and with us now, and demands serious response from our government. To do otherwise is immoral and incoonsiderate of future generations.
Finaly, with respect to your comments about oxygen, while this stoichiometric (constant ratio) relationship between O2 and CO2 is of course true, since O2 accounts for 21% of the atmosphere compared to only 3% or so for CO2, a simple calculation will show that the kinds of changes we are talking about with respect to CO2 will not have a large impact on atmospheric O2. Swings in O2 in the past have been responsive to much larger CO2 forcings, such as those associated with millennium-scale changes in the proportion of C in carbonate rocks.
# posted by 
: 11:30 AM
: 11:30 AM
Nancy:
I didn't say it was a fertilizer, but that it acted almost like a fertilizer in that it increased plant growth. Certainly the decomposition of even the increased algal growth adds CO2 to the atmosphere - the CO2 it has just removed. If you consider that there are algae consuming organisms, there is still a net loss of free CO2 in the environment.
The position I am taking here is that the Livermore study may have missed some important factors in their model. As far as the Bush administration is concerned I am in strong disagreement with their positions on the environment. I don’t find myself in much agreement with their opponents either. Both take far too much of a narrow, self-serving position which does little to advance the serious needs which are rapidly descending upon us. All this political posturing is a dubious waste of effort with virtually no positive effect.
Should you want to know what I believe is the real culprit behind all of our environmental problems, goto http://decimatenviro.blogspot.com and read Decimation of the Environment, The Real Culprit. I think you may find it interesting. I see no serious effort whatsoever to address this problem by anyone with any power.
Oh yes, changes in oxygen levels are now relatively minor and inconsequential, but in one scenario of the Livermore report they mentioned oxidation of all carbonaceous material. That would indeed remove all oxygen from the atmosphere. Sorry if my points are a bit murky, but I’m taking them off the top of my head with little backup reference. That does not mean they are without merit.
Thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to comment.
Post a Comment
I didn't say it was a fertilizer, but that it acted almost like a fertilizer in that it increased plant growth. Certainly the decomposition of even the increased algal growth adds CO2 to the atmosphere - the CO2 it has just removed. If you consider that there are algae consuming organisms, there is still a net loss of free CO2 in the environment.
The position I am taking here is that the Livermore study may have missed some important factors in their model. As far as the Bush administration is concerned I am in strong disagreement with their positions on the environment. I don’t find myself in much agreement with their opponents either. Both take far too much of a narrow, self-serving position which does little to advance the serious needs which are rapidly descending upon us. All this political posturing is a dubious waste of effort with virtually no positive effect.
Should you want to know what I believe is the real culprit behind all of our environmental problems, goto http://decimatenviro.blogspot.com and read Decimation of the Environment, The Real Culprit. I think you may find it interesting. I see no serious effort whatsoever to address this problem by anyone with any power.
Oh yes, changes in oxygen levels are now relatively minor and inconsequential, but in one scenario of the Livermore report they mentioned oxidation of all carbonaceous material. That would indeed remove all oxygen from the atmosphere. Sorry if my points are a bit murky, but I’m taking them off the top of my head with little backup reference. That does not mean they are without merit.
Thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
