Share

Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates

by: Kari Lydersen  |  The Washington Post

photo
A study released this weekend said rain forests will be more susceptible to forest fires. (Photo: AP)

    Chicago - The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

    "We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Field, a member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports. The higher emissions are largely the result of the increased burning of coal in developing countries, he said.

    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 dioxide 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. Along with carbon dioxide melting permafrost 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

And there are those who

And there are those who publish letters to the editor in our SC newspapers who still maintain that this Global Warming Thing is a myth. I guess that is done to maintain their appearance that they are intelligent people? The evidence of a problem is staggering and it seems that the Repugnicans are still communicating that Global Warming is not happening. Where is the Leadership on this???

Given that previous

Given that previous estimates have been too optimistic (despite the ideological attacks from right wing groups about "hockey stick" and other graphs), I would not be surprised if this one needs to be adjusted. It seems that we are tinkering with our planet without even knowing the true magnitude of the effects, nor does the public seem to have the courage to admit that their lifestyle is destructive to the future of not just themselves, but also their children and indeed, all multicellular life on earth. Alarming and sad.

The above commentator asks

The above commentator asks "where is the leadership on this?" In the hip pocket of the forces that are driving us to the brink. By the time either “they” get around to re-tooling our industries for alternative energy sources (other than the above-mentioned biofuels) or "we the people" rise up to compel them to, it will be way too late. So, my question to anyone out there who thinks they have an answer is this: where on this planet would be a wise place for those of us who have young children to move to? Perhaps no place is entirely safe, but some areas may be better placed in terms of avoiding floods, droughts, fires, leaking nuclear power plants, toxic waste, etc, whilst being able to sustain the people in the area with their basic needs. If such areas are known, I for one would like to relocate before the borders close. Not a cheery point of view, I realize, but probably a realistic one.

Our government is engaged in

Our government is engaged in the war against the future. Tipping point, anyone?

We can certainly blame our

We can certainly blame our governments but the fact of the matter is that our lifestyles are the individuals battles in the war against the future of the planet and nature. I think most of us are finding it very hard to declare a truce because our lives are structured in such that way that we can not easily end our personal contributions to the problem. We have a great opportunity to work as communities to construct something different while the carousel is slowed by the economic slowdown. But will we, can we, do we really want to? Do we even have a clue how or where to start?

It is important for

It is important for individuals to do what they can to solve this problem, but we can't succeed without government. Plus government action is by far the most efficient way to make the kinds of changes we need. Fortunately, Obama has already started making changes. I am worried he doesn't understand how bad and time sensitive the situation is, especially if he's relying on the IPCC reports. The best thing we as individuals can do is call on our government to act boldly and quickly before it is too late, and at the same time try to reduce our individual carbon footprint.