Author: admin

  • Climate countdown: Half a trillion tonnes of carbor left to burn

    Climate countdown: Half a trillion tonnes of carbon left to burn

    To avoid dangerous climate change of 2C, the world can only burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon, climate change experts warn

    Didcot power plant

    Didcot coal-fired power station. Photo: Charles O’Rear/Corbis

    The world has already burned half the fossil fuels necessary to bring about a catastrophic 2C rise in average global temperature, scientists revealed today.

    The experts say about half a trillion tonnes of carbon have been consumed since the industrial revolution. To prevent a 2C rise, they say, the total burnt must be kept to below a trillion tonnes. On current rates, that figure will be reached in 40 years.

    Myles Allen, a climate expert at Oxford University who led the new study, said: “Mother Nature doesn’t care about dates. To avoid dangerous climate change we will have to limit the total amount of carbon we inject into the atmosphere, not just the emission rate in any given year.”

    The scientists say their research could simplify political attempts to tackle global warming, which encompass a range of targets and timetables. Such proposals usually set future limits on the amount of carbon dioxide allowed to build up in the atmosphere, such as 450 parts per million (ppm), or as future emission rates, such as the UK’s pledge to slash emissions 80% by 2050.

    The new study effectively re-frames such targets as an available budget – to avoid dangerous climate change of 2C the world can only burn another half a trillion tonnes of carbon.

    Writing in today’s Nature, Allen and colleagues say a trillion tonnes of carbon burnt would be likely to produce a warming of between 1.6C and 2.6C, with a “most likely” 2C rise.

    Chris Huntingford of the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology said: “Research often reveals new complexities, but this analysis could actually simplify matters for policy makers. The relationship between total emissions and future warming can be inferred largely from quantities we can observe, and is remarkably insensitive to the timing of future emissions.”

    The key implication of the research, the scientists say, is that access to fossil fuels must somehow be rationed and eventually turned off, if the 2C target is to be met. “If country A burns it then country B can’t,” said Bill Hare, a climate expert with the Potsdam Institute in Germany. “It’s like a draining tank.”

    The research also highlights that continued high rates of fossil fuel use in the next decade will demand extraordinary cuts in emissions in future decades to hit the 2C target. Allen said: “If you use too much [carbon] this year, it doesn’t mean the planet will come to an end. It means you have to work even harder the next year.”

    A separate study, also published today in Nature, led by Malte Meinshausen at the Potsdam Institute, use a similar approach and sets a different carbon budget. They say the world can only emit 190bn tonnes of carbon between now and 2050 if it aims for a 2C rise. Emissions over 310bn tonnes in that time lead to a 50% chance of going over 2C.

    The new research does not say anything about the likelihood of reaching the 2C target. They simply change the way progress towards the target is measured.

    In an accompanying commentary article, the scientists behind both studies say: “These results are not incompatible with current proposals for near-term emission targets — the small size of the cumulative emission budgets to 2050 reinforces the need for global CO2 emissions to peak around or before 2020 so that emission pathways remain technologically and economically feasible.”

    They add: “Having taken 250 years to burn the first half trillion tonnes of carbon we look set, on current trends, to burn the next half trillion in less than 40. No one could credibly suggest that we should carry on with business as usual to the 2040s and then somehow suddenly stop using fossil fuels, switch to 100% carbon capture or just shut down the world economy overnight.”

  • Green energy a better bet

    Green energy a better bet

    Bjorn Lomborg | April 30, 2009

    Article from:  The Australian

    THE financial crisis has given many Australians reason to question the merits and timing of launching an emissions trading scheme to control carbon emissions. The debate is healthy, and hopefully will lead to a broader discussion about smarter ways to respond to this threat.

    The Australian Government is to be commended for recognising the threat of climate change. Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes

    it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.

    At first glance, an ETS seems like a neat market solution to global warming. In fact, it is worse than a straightforward carbon tax, where the costs are obvious.

    With an ETS, the costs – to jobs, household consumption and economic growth – are hidden, and easily lead to lobbying, special favours and heavy rent-seeking.

    But there is a bigger problem with both a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system: they are ineffective, expensive ways to cut temperatures.

    Countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol – including, of course belatedly, Australia – promised to make significant reductions to their carbon emissions. A lot of nations are struggling to absorb the hit to economic growth that carbon cuts require, so many of these promises will not be fulfilled.

    But even if every country lived up to its Kyoto agreement vows for every year until 2099 – costing the world $250 billion in lost growth every year – temperature rises would only be cut by a tiny 0.2 degrees Celsius.

    It seems logical to think, then, that countries such as Australia should advocate even bigger carbon cuts. But this means even more financial pain, without an equivalent increase in benefits. Even if the European Union were successful in its radical plan to slash emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels within 12 years, global temperatures would only be one-sixtieth of one degree Celsius lower by 2100, at a cost of $10 trillion.

    When we calculate the environmental and human benefits from this minuscule reduction in temperature rises, we discover that all of Europe’s efforts would only achieve four cents worth of benefits for every dollar spent.

    The goal of carbon emission mitigation is to make burning carbon so expensive that everyone switches to green energy sources. But this will not happen any time soon.

    Low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar power remain extremely expensive and uncompetitive. To produce the same amount of electricity, solar panels are four times more expensive than building a natural gas plant, and three times more expensive than a nuclear plant. Wind power is more than 50 per cent more expensive than electricity generated by coal.

    Rather than attempting the politically impossible by making fossil fuels so expensive that nobody will use them, we should try to make green energy so cheap everyone will use it.

    The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is now about $29, but the damage that a ton of carbon causes in the atmosphere is about $10. Spending $29 to achieve $10 worth of “good’ makes no sense.

    It is clear that we need to reduce by roughly tenfold the cost of cutting emissions. That will not be achieved on the world’s present path: spending on research and development of alternative energy sources has declined since the Kyoto Protocol was signed.

    Instead of continuing with the politically challenging, financially expensive and economically flawed approach of an ETS, Australia should focus on boosting investment into research and development of green energy.

    Economists who have calculated the long-term benefits for humans and the planet from reducing global warming – such as fewer heat deaths and less flooding – show that every dollar invested in making low-carbon energy cheaper will do $16 worth of “good”. Spending a dollar to do $16 worth of good makes a lot of sense.

    The Australian Government plans to participate in discussions in Copenhagen this December to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Those discussions will be complicated and charged, with developing nations such as China and India – who were not responsible for the emissions that will hurt the planet – seeking to be paid off in return for the major blow to development that carbon cuts would necessitate.

    This could so easily be avoided and a more effective response to climate change embraced.

    Instead of promising even bigger carbon cuts than Kyoto, leaders could instead call for every country to spend 0.05 per cent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development.

    That would increase the amount of such spending tenfold, yet the total cost would be only one-tenth of the cost of Kyoto.

    For Australia, it would mean an annual outlay of $540 million a year, considerably cheaper than many estimates of the industry damage that the ETS would cause.

    Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Until green energy sources become genuinely competitive, carbon will continue its stranglehold on every economy on Earth.

    Carbon cuts have become the only answer to global warming that is discussed. There has been a convergence of interests between businesses that stand to make a fortune from an ETS and some environmental campaigners who see carbon cuts as virtuous, while both neglect the commonsense contribution from the field of economic science.

    Fears about climate change are understandable. But fear alone is a poor basis upon which to build sound decisions.

    We should take lessons from both natural science and economic science, and ensure that we choose the most effective and realistic response to this global threat.

    Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Denmark-based think tank the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, and an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

  • Ethanol producers press for higher limits

    Ethanol Producers Press for Higher Limits

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, March 6, 2009; Page D01

     

    The nation’s ethanol producers are urging the Obama administration to raise the 10 percent limit on ethanol in motor fuel to 15 percent or more, a move they hope will create new demand at a time when many distilleries are idle.

    The producers say higher ethanol blends would help create jobs and reduce petroleum imports. Moreover, without a change in the 10 percent limit, ethanol makers say it could be difficult to fulfill a congressional mandate for renewable fuel use and the makers of new forms of ethanol, which rely on raw materials other than corn, could be locked out of the fuel market.

    “This is about jobs, energy security for America, improving the environment and meeting our legal responsibilities under the 2007 energy bill,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, co-chairman of a group of ethanol firms called Growth Energy.

    Growth Energy plans to formally request a waiver today from the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the ethanol content of motor fuel to 15 percent.

    Under the existing 10 percent limit, ethanol production would theoretically top out at 14 billion gallons a year based on current fuel consumption trends, or less because of transportation constraints that limit ethanol deliveries in many parts of the country. That falls far short of the targets in current law, which requires refiners to use 36 billion gallons a year of ethanol by 2022, up from the current 10.5 billion gallon production level. President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he favors a 60 billion-gallon-a-year target.

    But many critics say the push for higher ethanol limits is really about propping up the heavily subsidized ethanol industry and giving a boost to venture capital firms that are still struggling to come up with an economically competitive way to produce other forms of ethanol made from plants that do not compete with food products.

    In addition, the American Petroleum Institute and some carmakers say they want to wait to make sure that higher percentages of ethanol in gasoline won’t damage vehicles’ engine parts.

    Edward B. Cohen, vice president of government and industry relations at American Honda, said questions remain about the effect on existing engines in motorcycles, lawn mowers and weed trimmers.

    “What is the implication for those engines of using a higher blend, which has more water and is therefore more corrosive?” Cohen asked. “I think that displacing petroleum with ethanol is a plus, but before moving precipitously, we need to make sure that the products are going to continue to perform and that emissions will not be adversely affected.”

    Not all automakers oppose the change. In a letter two weeks ago to the chief executive of ethanol maker POET, Ford said it would endorse an immediate increase in ethanol blends up to 15 percent.

    The ethanol industry’s push comes as the Obama administration appears to be leaning toward lifting the ethanol ceiling slightly, perhaps to 12 percent, while research on higher concentrations is done.

    “The only issue is what auto companies say about the damage it could do to engines,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters at a recent forum sponsored by the trade publication Platts.

    Many ethanol producers are pressing for a decision quickly. The industry has the capacity to produce 12.5 billion gallons a year of corn-based ethanol, about 9 percent of the nation’s motor fuel supply and three times as much as was produced in 2005.

    But it is falling about 2 billion gallons short of that capacity as prices have tumbled in the economic downturn. VeraSun, once the nation’s second-biggest producer, filed for bankruptcy protection last fall after losing hundreds of millions of dollars on a bad bet on corn prices. It accounts for about half of the nation’s idle capacity.

    Other firms have been hit too. Last week Pacific Ethanol, struggling to negotiate new loan terms with Wachovia and other lenders, announced that it would suspend operations at two 60 million-gallon-a-year facilities, one in Stockton, Calif., and one in Burley, Idaho. Pacific Ethanol had already suspended operations at a 40 million-gallon-a-year plant.

    “It’s because of the economic climate,” said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association. Companies are struggling to get operating capital and profit margins are being squeezed. “Things are bad,” he said.

    Congress might soon weigh in on the issue. Yesterday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the issue was under discussion, adding “it’s unlikely that I would want to roll back” the renewable fuels standard Congress set in 2007.

     


  • Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity

    Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity

    I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”
    The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them
    Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. “Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It’s unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing.”
    No summer ice
    The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.
    Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.
    Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn’t bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
    Runaway warming
    The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost.
    What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C.
    This intense warming is not confined to the Arctic Ocean. It extends south, deep into the land masses of Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia, and to their snowfields, ice sheets and permafrost. In 2007, the North American Arctic was more than 2 °C warmer than the average for 1951 to 1980, and parts of Siberia over 3 °C warmer. In 2008, most of Siberia was 2 °C warmer than average (see map).
    Positive feedbacks
    Most of this is the result of positive feedbacks (see illustration) from lost ocean ice, says David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. His modelling studies show that during periods of rapid sea-ice loss, warming extends some 1500 kilometres inland from the ice itself. “If sea-ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate,” he says.
    Changes in wind patterns may accelerate the warming even further. “Loss of summer sea ice means more heat is absorbed in the ocean, which is given back to the atmosphere in early winter, which changes the wind patterns, which favours additional sea ice loss,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “The potential big deal is that we now may be having a positive feedback between atmospheric wind patterns and continued loss of sea ice.”
    Incidentally, the changing winds might also be to blame for some of the cold and snowy weather in North America and China in recent winters, Overland says. Unusual poleward flows of warm air over Siberia have displaced cold air southwards on either side.
    Going global
    The rapid warming in the Arctic means that a global temperature rise of 3 °C, likely this century, could translate into a 10 °C warming in the far north. Permafrost hundreds of metres deep will be at risk of thawing out.
    This is where things go global. The Arctic is not just a reflective mirror that is cracking up. It is also a massive store of carbon and methane, locked into the frozen soils and buried in icy structures beneath the ocean bed.
    A quarter of the land surface of the northern hemisphere contains permafrost, permanently frozen soil, water and rock. In places, deep permafrost that formed during the last ice age, when the sea level was much lower, extends far out under the ocean, beneath the seabed. Large areas of permafrost are already starting to melt, resulting in rapid erosion, buckled highways and pipelines, collapsing buildings and “drunken” forests.
    Locked away
    The real worry, though, is that permafrost contains organic carbon in the form of long-dead plants and animals. Some of it, including the odd mammoth, has remained frozen for tens of thousands of years. When the permafrost melts, much of this carbon is likely to be released into the atmosphere.
    No one knows for sure how much carbon is locked away in permafrost, but it seems there is much more than we thought. An international study headed by Edward Schuur of the University of Florida last year doubled previous estimates of the carbon content of permafrost to about 1600 billion tonnes – roughly a third of all the carbon in the world’s soils and twice as much as is in the atmosphere.
    Time bomb
    Schuur estimates that 100 billion tonnes of this carbon could be released by thawing this century, based on standard scenarios. If that all emerged in the form of methane, it would have a warming effect equivalent to 270 years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. “It’s a kind of slow-motion time bomb,” he says.
    One hotspot is the 40,000-year-old east Siberian permafrost region. It alone contains 500 billion tonnes of carbon, says Philippe Ciais, co-chair of the Global Carbon Project, a research network analysing the carbon cycle. East Siberia was at times 7 °C warmer than normal during the summer of 2007, he says.
    Higher temperatures mean the seasonal melting of the upper layer of soil extends down deeper than normal, melting the permafrost below. Microbes can then break down any organic matter in the thawing layer, not only releasing carbon but also generating heat that leads to even deeper melting. The heat produced by decomposition is yet another positive feedback that will accelerate melting, Ciais says.
    Potent greenhouse gas
    What’s more, if summer melting depth exceeds the winter refreezing level then a layer of permanently unfrozen soil known as a talik forms, sandwiched between the permafrost below and the winter-freezing surface layer. “A talik allows heat to build more quickly in the soil, hastening the long-term thaw of permafrost,” says Lawrence.
    The carbon in melting permafrost can enter the atmosphere either as carbon dioxide or methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas, molecule-for-molecule. If organic matter decomposes in the low-oxygen conditions typical of the boggy soils and lakes in these regions, more methane forms.
    Researchers have been monitoring the Stordalen mire in northern Sweden for decades. The permafrost there is melting fast and, as conditions become wetter, it is releasing ever more methane into the air, says Torben Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. This is the future for most of the northern hemisphere’s permafrost, he says.
    Disturbing picture
    It’s not just existing boggy patches that are the problem. In low-lying areas, the loss of volume as ice-rich permafrost melts leads to the collapse of the ground and the formation of thermokarst lakes from the meltwater. Satellite surveys show the number and area of these lakes is increasing and, as the work by Walter and others shows, they could be a major source of methane.
    Put together, the latest research paints a disturbing picture. Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought. “Instead of disappearing in 500 years, the deepest permafrost could disappear in 100 years,” Ciais says.
    The permafrost is not the only source of methane in the Arctic. Shallow ocean sediments can be rich in methane hydrates, a form of ice containing trapped methane. Particularly worrying are the huge amounts of methane hydrate thought to lie beneath the Arctic Ocean. Because the waters here are so cold, methane hydrates can be found closer to the surface than in most other parts of the world. These shallow deposits are far more vulnerable to the warming of surface waters.
    Blowouts
    Juergen Mienert at the University of Tromso in Norway, who has analysed past eruptions of methane hydrates from the Arctic, says current conditions are disturbingly similar to those in the past when warming waters penetrated sediments, triggering the release of hydrates. “Global warming will cause more blowouts, more releases,” he says.
    While shrinking sea ice in 2007 may have attracted all the headlines, some researchers say what is really scaring them is a simultaneous jump in methane levels. While the level of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, for the past decade or so there has been little change.
    Then, in 2007, several million tonnes of extra methane mysteriously entered the atmosphere. Detailed analysis from methane monitors around the world suggests that much of it came from the far north. Ciais says it looks like the biggest source was Siberian permafrost.
    Unstoppable
    This is still contentious. Matt Rigby of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has analysed the methane surge, says we cannot yet say whether emissions from melting permafrost contributed most to the rise. “But 2007 was unusually warm in Siberia, and we would expect emissions increases when temperature rises,” he adds.
    The rise could just be a blip – or the start of something big. “Once this process starts, it could soon become unstoppable,” Ciais says.
    Walter agrees. Right now, she estimates, only a few tens of millions of tonnes of methane are being emitted. “But there are tens of billions of tonnes potentially available for release.” And the faster the warming, the faster the emissions will rise.
    Out of control
    Most worrying of all is the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. The carbon stored in the far north has the potential to raise global temperatures by 10 °C or more. If global warming leads to the release of more greenhouse gases, these releases will cause yet more warming and still more carbon will escape to the atmosphere. Eventually the feedback process would continue even if we cut our greenhouse emissions to zero. At that point climate change would be out of control.
    There is another concern about Arctic melting: the growing amount of fresh water flowing into the Arctic Ocean. The shrinking thickness and extent of sea ice has added a huge amount of fresh water already. Meanwhile, rivers are pouring up to 10 per cent more water into the ocean than they did half a century ago. This is partly the result of rising precipitation as the air warms – warmer air can hold more moisture – and partly the result of melting permafrost, ice and snow. Yet more fresh water is coming from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. As the Arctic warms further, these flows of fresh water will increase.
    All this extra fresh water could weaken the pump that drives the thermohaline circulation, or ocean conveyor current. Its most famous element is the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic, but the conveyor travels all the oceans. It has its beginnings in the far north of the Atlantic, off Greenland, where unusually dense water plunges to the ocean floor. The water becomes dense here partly because it cools and partly because the formation of sea ice increases salinity. As the water gets a bit warmer and a bit less salty, thanks to all the extra fresh water, the worry is that the pump could slow down.
    Fears that the conveyor will soon shut down altogether, causing a fall in temperatures in northern Europe, have receded. Models of the climate system do not predict a shutdown any time within the next century, says oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
    Monsoon warning
    Even a slowdown in the conveyor could produce dramatic changes, though. Climate models suggest that changes in the ocean conveyor will alter rainfall patterns around the world. The models are backed by studies of how the climate has changed during past shutdowns of the ocean conveyor.
    The biggest consequence, says Buwen Dong of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading, UK, is likely to be a disruption, and quite probably a complete collapse, of the Asian monsoon, causing severe droughts in south Asia. “It could have enormous social and economic impacts on these nations,” he says.
    The disruption of the monsoon would have enormous social and economic impacts in south Asia
    You can say that again. The Asian monsoon is the main source of water for large areas of the most heavily populated continent. An estimated 2 billion – getting on for 1 in 3 citizens on the planet – rely on it to grow their food. Take away the monsoon and they would starve. All because of warming in the Arctic.
    Unquantifiable
    Nobody can be sure how likely all this is. Indeed, the scientists at the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who compile its reports cannot even reach agreement on how to quantify the probabilities of such events. As a result, the “scary scenarios” were barely mentioned in the last report.
    Nonetheless, the latest findings suggest we cannot afford to ignore these possibilities, especially given that everything to do with global climate is linked. The loss of Arctic sea ice could lead to the release of ever more methane from permafrost and methane hydrates. That in turn would make a dramatic reduction in the strength of the ocean conveyor sometime this century increasingly likely, which could lead to abrupt changes in the Asian monsoon.
    With the summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean already shrinking much faster than the IPCC models predicted, one thing is for sure. It is not just the polar bears who should be worrying about the warming Arctic

    Please forward this newsletter to your friends and encourage them to join the mailing list at http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_newsletter_subscribe.htm

  • Climate change hitting entire arctic ecosystem,says report

    Climate change hitting entire Arctic ecosystem, says report

    Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among oth

     

    Arctic ice

    Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005

    Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.

    In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.

    In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.

    Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as “black carbon” – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.

    “Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic,” it says.

    The report’s main findings are:

    Land

    Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.

    Summer sea ice

    The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.

    Greenland

    The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.

    Warmer waters

    In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.

    Black carbon

    Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.

  • Fires fuelling global warming :study

    Fires fuelling global warming: study

    By Wendy Zukerman

    Posted Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:36am AEST
    Updated Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:37am AEST

    Members of the CFA tackle a bushfire at Bunyip

    Bushfires appear to contribute to one-fifth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, say researchers (User submitted via ABC Contribute: Mr Bettong)

    Carbon emissions from deforestation fires have a significant impact on global warming, according to an international study.

    The study, which appears in today’s edition of Science, provides the first consensus on the affect of fires on climate change.

    “Fire has been underestimated as a contributor to climate change,” says study lead author Professor David Bowman of the University of Tasmania.

    “In the past it was thought that fires were a steady state.”

    Bowman says scientists have assumed that the carbon released into the atmosphere from burning plants, was equivalent to the carbon reabsorbed when plants regrow.

    But the study’s authors note a marked reduction in fire events since 1870, which they speculate may be the result of intense farming and grazing, along with negative attitudes towards fire.

    As a result, says Bowman, increased fuel loads and climate change has resulted in more intense deforestation fires. These fires release more carbon into the atmosphere, place increased stress on forest recovery, and result in less carbon being sequestered from the atmosphere.

    “If you change the climate then you can see that you’re creating a disequilibrium,” says Bowman. “The forests are struggling to recover from it.”

    He says the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria and recent wildfires in southern California are consistent with the direction of global warming.

    Wide-ranging effects

     

    The researchers used data from a range of sources including the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report along with deforestation fire modelling to calculate the impact of fire on climate change during the past 200 years.

    They compared the amount of landscape burnt in deforestation fires with the amount of carbon dioxide released from burning.

    The researchers found that deforestation fires alone contribute up to 20% of human-caused CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times.

    They also found that between 1997 and 2001, biomass burning accounted for about two-thirds of the variability in the CO2 growth rate.

    Fire also influences climate by releasing atmospheric aerosols and changing surface albedo (surface brightness), they write.

    The study’s authors add, “Regionally, smoke plumes inhibit convection, and black carbon warms the troposphere, thereby reducing vertical convection and limiting rain-cloud formation and precipitation.”

    Dr Jennifer Balch of the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California Santa Barbara, and co-author of the study, says the models show fire has an impact on greenhouse gas levels, including carbon dioxide, methane and aerosols.

    “Fire influences the majority of those terms,” says Balch.

    According to Balch, a key to managing fire is accepting that it is as an intrinsic part of the planet.

    “Fire is as elemental as air or water,” she says.

    The study’s authors say future IPCC assessments of global climate change “should include specific analyses of the role of fire”.