...and further admit that the climate is cyclical. Story here.
But they still want to destroy the economy to cut down on CO2.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
This Just In: Global Warming Scaremongers Admit Climate is Cooling
...and further admit that the climate is cyclical. Story here.
But they still want to destroy the economy to cut down on CO2.
66 comments:
Did you even read the article?
The name of the article is: "Despite another cold winter in Oregon, global warming hasn't gone away, experts say.
The subtitle is "Temperatures over the long term suggest the planet is continuing to get hotter, not cooler."
Paragraph two says: "Maybe for the time being, scientists say, but probably not over the longer term. One or even two years isn't nearly enough time to indicate a climate trend, researchers say."
Paragraph seven says: "But Northwest climate scientists say it's a matter of short-term versus long-term perspective. The cool winter doesn't mean there's no warming trend, they say."
Paragraph one from page two: " ... the past three months do seem unusually cool, within the perspective of the past 10 years."
... and so on. I'm not going to quote every single piece of the article that refutes the point you are trying to make.
Re-read the article.
Yes I did read the article.
The Zero - The Propagonian - The FISHWRAPPER what a worthless waste of Paper.
Drive your OIL BASED 4-Wheeled Combustion engine based Vehicle folks. Stay out of Government Transportation.
A new chapter to the Lefts Religion.
Ps: There is no Global Warming-Cooling, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Then I would recommend a remedial* reading course, as the entire story states the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.
In video-game parlance, Victoria, you got pwned.
(*a definition of "remedial", for Klatu to learn: tending or intended to rectify or improve)
Oh and if its to COOL for ya out there, Do what one of the Lefts Favorite Failures as President Jima Carter once said
PUT A SWEATER ON or PUT A COAT ON.
Victoria, this is a La Nina year. It has to to with ocean upwelling near the equator that efects ocean currents which create Pacific Trade winds which create weather.
This change in the normal pattern of air pressure reduces the trade winds, causing the equatorial counter current that flows west to east to accumulate warm water along the Peruvian and Ecuadorian coasts. This causes the thermocline to drop in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and the cold upwelling to stop along the coast of Peru.
This is all part of the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The cooling effects that result from it can temporarily off set the overall warming that is due to increased
CO2 emmisions from fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation.
The Atmospheric greenhouse effect is a normal process that involves the infrared absorbing gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone.
But because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature. Based on an extensive review of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
Oh, good! I was sort of hoping this sorta thing would come up again, just so I could take up the gauntlet being thrown down. To address this story, I wish to quote a certain controversial conservative commentator:
"Warming trends prove global warming. Cooling trends prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman."
Frankly, I'm going to have a really fun time in about 20 years since the scientific-political hysteria about climate change undergoes 20-year cycles where they switch off between global warming and global cooling. Why will I have fun in 20 years? Because I can go around smacking people over the head with all the hyterical "we're gonna melt to death" claims as I read a "new study" telling us that we're all gonna freeze to death. The absurdity of this latest part of the cycle just can't fit into words.
Yes, Victoria might have slightly erred in what the article said but her commentary thereon was correct: it's an absurdity but just in case it's not, the government still wants to trash our economy using global warming as an excuse.
You Socialists Keep your Global Warming - Cooling Religion _ _ _ _ to yourselves. There is no Global Warming-Cooling, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Ps: Boycott The Liberal Weather Channel
Pps: Support Operation Chaos
Keith, I highly reccomend you take one of Dr. Andrew Fountains Climatology classes at PSU. He also teaches meteorology and a great class on the Holocene. He is leading researcher of ice core data.
Whats more, If Global warming is true and we develop clean energy resourses to mitigate it;EVERYBODY WINS.
But... If your wrong (and solid science says you are) EVERYBODY LOSES.
I would also like to point out that Anthropogenic forcing of the greenhouse effect only began in the 20th century. That is why there is difficulty in establishing a pattern when you are looking at ice core data from more than 10,000 years, and seashell fossil data from millions of years ago. Scientists are very aware of several natural oscillations that occur. They actually factor these in when creating computer models of climate! These Computer models suggest that a doubling of the concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, may raise the average global temperature between 1 and 3° Celsius.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect causes the atmosphere to trap more heat energy at the Earth's surface and within the atmosphere by absorbing and re-emitting longwave energy. Of the longwave energy emitted back to space, 90% is intercepted and absorbed by greenhouse gases. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth's average global temperature would be -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius. In the last few centuries, the activities of humans have directly or indirectly caused the concentration of the major greenhouse gases to increase. Scientists predict that this increase may enhance the greenhouse effect making the planet warmer. Some experts estimate that the Earth's average global temperature has already increased by 0.3 to 0.6° Celsius, since the beginning of this century, because of this enhancement. Predictions of future climates indicate that by the middle of the next century the Earth's global temperature may be 1 to 3° Celsius higher than today.
And thats major.
But if I'm right (and significantly more solid science says I am), we're trashing our economy for no reason at all. If I'm wrong, the measures that are being reccommended will do no good while doing significant harm economically.
The global warming thing serves the interests of the people who want clean energy and the government types that want an excuse to exercise more regulatory power. Clean energy is all well and good but only when developed due to market demand; the government's subsidy is a clever way of saying that everyone pays if the government wants something to succeed. I may think ethanol-enhanced gasoline is a crock but the government still gets to take my tax money and subsidize it; I'm forced to fund something I wouldn't want if it was free. Oh, and did you read that blurb in the opinion section a week or two ago about how fire departments need special equipment to fight a car fire that's burning on ethanol? Charming.
The greenhouse effect is also self-sustaining and human activity causes a negigible increase. Krakatoa blew more junk into the atmopshere than we could hope to in a great many years. Ditto with Mt. St. Helens and any random increase in forest fires and volcanic activity. The data is too easily skewed by these things which are extremely hard to factor in.
What are you talking about keith. The earth is running out of oil, and we have to depend on other countries that are enemies of the state to get it. Were having wars for it, and oils prices are at an all time high, over $10.00 a barrel. Who's economy does that help?
Development of clean energy resources is a way to reduce or end oil dependence on foreign countries and develop our own economy for once.
Sure you will find a few hack scientists paid by the Bush administration that come up with bogus science. But the majority of the scientific community summarily dismisses it for the frauds they are.
Again,since this is a subject that interests you I encourage you to take a class from Andrew Fountain.
IF even IF theoretically global warming was an elaborate hoax, if we had devveloped revewable energy resources as a result, our entire economy would improve. IF I am right and we do nothing now to mitigate it we may damage the climate enough that we experience a sudden catastraughic event (think Dinosaurs).
If we know that pumping ourselves full of steroids or growth hormones, smoking cigarettes, or ingesting narcotics will sicken and eventually help to kill our bodies, we should know to stop.
If we know that spilling oil or dumping chemicals and waste into the ocean will kill fish and destroy our oceans, we should know to stop.
Likewise, I believe it stands to reason that if we are belching toxins and other poisonous agents into the air ... well, I don't need scientific evidence (that the Bush administration is all to willing to alter/suppress/ignore) to tell me that it isn't a good thing.
I feel it's our duty and RESPONSIBILITY to ourselves and to future generations to minimize our impact - to minimize the damage that we do - to our air and atmosphere.
It's really that simple.
I absolutely think it's the prudent and forward-thinking to do, this study of what effect we have on this planet - which, I need not remind anyone, is the only one we have.
I should also add that I don't feel that making changes to our fuel, our fueling systems, and the way we research alternatives to the ones we have now will "destroy" our economy - if anything, it could actually HELP our economy, as we'll be able to manufacture and sell brand new products meant to help rather than harm.
In a way, it's like creating a brand new market.
I meant to say oil is over $100.00 a barrel. But you all know that.
And Keith your volcanoe argument is without merit. While volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities. Heres a citable reasource: T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union)
Gerlach notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 TIMES. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). .
The economy of oil-producing states, naturally, but a majority of our oil sources are places like Canada which don't quite qualify as enemies. And OPEC knows very well that oil is only valuable if you can sell it so guess who has the biggest incentive to overproduce oil so the price will go down?
The measures I was referring to, however, were the various schemes to lower carbon dioxide emissions or set legal ceilings for it. These goals are simply not possible without suspending many of the activities that produce carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses like methane) and I'll let you have a guess as to how many of the activities of a modern industrial society produce greenhouse gasses even after ramping up efficiency and installing air scrubbers and the like. The industry that produces meat, for example, is a huge producer of methane and the only way to realistically curtail THAT is an enforced vegan diet or something.
Yanno, there's a really interesting thing about scientific consensus, jonny... consensus is unscientific. It's not a group of 5000 scietists that get together and decide on what has scientific merit... it's often one or two of them somewhere. In a system where it's possible for one out of a million professionals to know something that the other 999,999 do not, consensus is meaningless. Also, the tactic of dismissing scientists that disagree with the political consensus as bought-and-paid-for is inherantly dishonest. Pray tell... who do you think pays a state university to research something? Who pays the scientific panels the UN convenes? Who pays the scientists that Greenpeace like to cite for their purposes? If you wander around following the money, you can discredit a scientist without any scientific basis whatsoever just because you don't like who pays him. If I wanted to use your tactic, jonny, I would dismiss almost every scientist in this consensus of yours as a stooge of Greenpeace or the government or the UN. Fortunately for this debate, I think that tactic is clearly stupid, not to mention logically flawed.
I think with you I might be running into one of my inherant internal conflicts... I believe that the general goal of many of these global-warming hysterics is to use scientific progress as a means to improve the society at large i.e. renewable energy, ultra-efficient internal combustion engines, renewable synthetic alternatives to petroleum, etc. However, I deplore their tactics which I regard as dishonest and founded on dodgy science. And there is always the fact that the only entity with the power to enforce all of these measures is the government which means yet another agency being paid for by tax dollars with the inherant power to minutely regulate how we live our lives.
Incidentally, that's why I think that alleging that Bush administration scientists are unreliable is logically untenable... the government would benefit from a finding of global warming because it would give the central government increased power over the economy and the lives of the people. The government benefits from the belief in global warming as does the UN (which gains power because global warming is a global problem and requires a global solution) and practically every environmentalist group in existence who'd gain unprecendented authority to tell everyone how we should live to avoid the incoming catastrophe of global warming. Can you see why I'm so suspicious of this entire hue and cry? The end result is that the government and the UN and every environmentalist organization with a website gains power over me as a person and I really really don't take well to that concept.
See, iknowhowtospell, we're on the same page on this issue! As a general matter, I want to see every smokestack with a scrubber bolted to it, every fume-emitting power plant replaced by increasingly efficient and energy-rich nuclear fission (and hoping for nuclear fusion in the future which is the Holy Grail of energy production), every internal combustion engine engineered to death so it can cross the US on 20 gallons of gas (believe it or not, I've see a car that purports to be capable of this)... the entire drill. I'd be overjoyed if we progressed to a point at which the only pollution visited on our environment is of the type that it is literally impossible to prevent. On points of this nature, we are in total mind-meld.
Our difference, I think, is in how we percieve the problem and what we're willing to accept to achieve a solution. I am unwilling to accept virtually totalitarian control over every aspect of my life to achieve this state of environmental harmony and I think that far too many people in the global warming hysteria crowd would accept any price, no matter how terrible, to prevent the catastrophe they've convinced themselves is coming. I remain very skeptical for the reasons I stated above to jonny but also because I've stumbled across a considerable enough collection of scientific facts that they make me very doubtful that anthropogentic global warming is anywhere close to being a scientifically sound concept.
As an aside, I agree with you about the fuel. I encourage you, however, to look closely at the Pentagon's work on this issue. I realize that's a bizarre idea but the Pentagon is projecting that they can use more environmentally-friendly fuels, derived from coal, to shave about $3 billion off their fuel bill by 2011. (Check this link; it's just the tip of the iceberg, however: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026906 ) This synthetic fuel runs around $45 a barrel so you can see why the military is happy about it... they save around $55 a barrel by switching to these new fuels. What if some president helpfully suggested that someone capitalize on what the Air Force is cooking up and see if it can't be used to replace conventional gasoline? The possibilities are enticing, especially since the US has some of the world's largest deposits of coal. Whatcha think, iknowhowtospell?
Uh, just so you know, jonny, a name, a year, and an orgnization isn't a cited source. That gives me something to type into Google with the hope that I'll find what you're referring to but you failed to cite an actual source for your claim. Useful thing to remember if you write a research paper one day.
Incidentally, I found the website you quoted. Said website is distinguished by a total lack of citation which means they're essentially claiming that T.M. Gerlach said such a thing but they chose not to quote him or point to the article in which he said it. Further research on Google has turned up 4 references to this statement but none of them contain a citation which gives it the feel of a popular rumor. I find this lack of citation to be an interesting omission... care to address it?
YOur kidding yourself, Keith. Your believeing the hype of sean hannity, Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh. Additionaly, those hack scientists have all been discredited. Most often their research is flawed because they were paid to do it that way. Iknow how it works. ANd yes, I would not trust greenpeace scientists anymore than them if thats all it were. But Iam talking about Independant Researchers and Acedemics. And yes, in the scientific community consensus does matter. I'm sorry but your not galaleo. Your like one of those people who doesn't even recognize global warming.
You said you go to PSU. I DARE you to take one of Andrew Founains classes next quarter. Once you research and understand the mechanics of the climate it will be a lot clearer to you. Theres just to much you don't know to have a competent argument on this. It really gets complex.
The other thing you fail to address is that the worlds oil supply is running out.
From CNN: Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say. At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050".
So if were going to run out of oil doen't it make good economic sense to develop sustainable resouce technology NOW?
And you seem to be one of those people who see what they believe and don't bother to see if it's true. See? "I'm right, you're stupid" type statements are easy to throw around.
Well, jonny, I'd take your challenge but for a somewhat inconvinient fact. First, I'd have to shell out about $300 to take a course that you claim will prove your viewpoint to me but otherwise doesn't benefit me whatsoever. Second, I graduate this term with my Bachelor of Science in history and to go back to PSU instead of going out into the world and getting a job and a career just to take up your infantile dare would be stupid of me. You can claim until you're blue in the fact that you're smarter than me and I can't possibly have a competant opinion on this issue because I didn't take a class you like but those claims don't bolster your argument or credibility. I'm sorry; try again later.
The answer to your question is "no," jonny. You can wait until later to tell me what I've won.
jonny said: those hack scientists have all been discredited.
Klatu said: Hardly jonny
Jonny said:From CNN
Klatu said: The Clinton News Network.
Discredited a Long time ago
Keith, I am not trying to insult your intelligence. What I am saying is that having taken those classses I can explain to you some of the complexities of the earths climate, along with the atmospheric effect and climate forcing. Therefore, yes, I am much more knowlegable on the issue. (Even though I am a terrable speller)
But, since having made my case here by using accredited scientific facts doesn't convince you (Einstein himself couldn't do it) I am encouraging you to educate yourself and then draw your own conclusion based on scientific facts and evidence. Truly anyone can see your just believing what you want to hear. You know, many republicans would side with me hear. Your position is based on your unwillingness to learn (no offense).
And if you like I will find you a better citation regarding the volcanos. Trust me it won't be difficult for me. Ive got several books on the issue and I remember some scholarly article from JSTOR that I looked at. Maybe something for you to link to. But it will have to wait because its late and I'm getting up early for the Obama rally tomorrow. Cheers
One more thing to consider;
We do not get the majority of our oil from Canada. We have foreign oil dependance primarily on middle eastern countries. Even if you discount oil wars and price gouging: What benefit does it have for our countries economy?
Look under the "Here it is: Final Fool Bracket" blog entry for my reply to your original version of that post, jonny. But since you expanded on your original, allow me to add an addendum to my response.
The sarcastic little snipes you added in just make you sound like an ass. You tossed in a couple facts (although you sourced none of them) and certainly know how to talk as if you understand the issue but you've made no attempt to demonstrate that your arguments are valid by use of citation. Thus, I conclude that you're blowing hot air, seemingly for the purpose of being able to tell me that "you're stupid, I'm right." Your claim to have numerous books to cite in addition to an unnamed article on JSTOR was a charming touch. I'm not impressed.
As an aside, I do indeed have some firepower to make use of in this situation but until you cite a source in proof of your pontification, I feel no obligation to back myself up.
I'm honestly surprised at you, jonny... you've got a clever fellow like iknowhowtospell to use as an example of a polite and reasonable representative of your position but don't seem willing to follow his example. As you might have noticed, even when he considers me wrong, he has yet to call me "unwilling to learn" or imply that I'm stupid or uneducated. I fully expect that if and when I make a stupid remark, he'll tell me that I'm am idiot but until I make said stupid remark, he seems willing to be mature. Go and do thou likewise, grasshopper.
"We do not get the majority of our oil from Canada. We have foreign oil dependance primarily on middle eastern countries."
Hey jonny, here's a balance sheet of where we get our oil imports from as of December 07 taken from the Energy Information Administration web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/
petroleum/data_publications/company
_level_imports/current/import.html
Wouldja look at that! Look at the country at the top of the import list! I think that's CANADA! And look, there's 3 countries in the Middle East out of the 15 top sources of US imports. So what's that about Canada not being the top source and us getting most of our oil from the Middle East? Thank you for your contribution, jonny, but you're not as brilliant as you think you are... finding those numbers took me 2 seconds.
I love it when people say that were running out of oil.. I am all for flex fuel vehicles that can burn gas, ethanol and Methanol fuels... But...
Then you read these kinds of articles below.
__________________________________
"Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase U.S. Reserve
Next Energy News ^ | 2-13-08
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.
In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.
It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run."
So CO2 is the villian that is causing 'global warming' (never mind that CO2 is [b]essential to all life on Earth[/b]). Atmospheric concentrations are at 100 year highs. Yet the 4 major tracking stations (Hadley's, NASA's GISS, UAH, & RSS) have reported that last year the Earth cooled over 0.6 degrees C.
That fact alone questions the basic concept of CO2 caused 'global warming'.
Link --
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Keith
You want me to CITE my statements. Give me a break. I couldn't nake this stuff up and blogging to you is not the same as wrighting a research paper. The scientific evidence I have given is true. I know it because I have studied it, and written reearch papers on it.
My Professor is a leading researcher in the field. BUT alas it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to educate yourself. Until then you don't even have enough of an idea of how the global climate functions to form a scientifically based opinion. Your statements reflect that youve heard a few things, that, sound to me like their right out of sean hannity's or rush limbaughs platbook. They are certainly not grounded in science!
But anyway I could drop sources all day and it won't change your opinion. You will continue to claim that its all one big elaborate hoax, or that you know more than the vast majority of scientists from around the world.
But here is a source for the volcano information I promised:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
Objection: One decent-sized volcanic eruption puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a decade of human emissions. It's ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 emissions will have any effect.
Answer: Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.
I suppose next week you'll be defending holocaust denial. (Maybe not, but its just as rediculous)
One more thing. You are sidestepping the issue. Are you trying to say that we don't have oil dependence on the middle east? Then explain why oil is over $100.00 per barrel!
FURTHERMORE, oil dependence is oil dependence even when we get it from Canada.
The question was HOW DOES FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE HELP OUR ECONOMY?
FYI: Barack Obama pointed out this morning that raising gas milage requirements on new cars to 40mpg would save the same amount of oil that we import from the Persian Gulf in one year! What's so Horrible about that keith?
One more thing. You are sidestepping the issue. Are you trying to say that we don't have oil dependence on the middle east? Then explain why oil is over $100.00 per barrel!
FURTHERMORE, oil dependence is oil dependence even when we get it from Canada.
The question was HOW DOES FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE HELP OUR ECONOMY?
FYI: Barack Obama pointed out this morning that raising gas milage requirements on new cars to 40mpg would save the same amount of oil that we import from the Persian Gulf in one year! What's so Horrible about that keith?
Nice trick, jonny. I bash you over the head with proof that you're ignorant and you quickly change the subject to a strawman. As I clearly proved with the Department of Energy's report on how much oil we import from the Middle East as opposed to other places, we are NOT dependent on Middle East oil. Because you are clearly too blind to glean facts from a source, I'll throw a couple numbers at you. In December 2007, we imported 7.083 million barrels of oil per day from places other than the Middle East. In the same time period, we imported 2.211 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East. This means in December 2007, we got 23.79% of our oil imports from the Middle East and 76.21% from other places (among the 15 largest sources, by the way; this number goes down if you count every single place oil is imported from). We're dependent on a place that supplies less than a quarter of our oil imports? This is why I don't regard you as worthy of my time and attention... not only do you throw "Holocaust denier" at me, you are clearly ignorant of information I can acquire with Google in less than a minute. That speaks very ill of you, jonny.
Keith, I would have viewed your link but its a dead link.
You are right I didn't check to see which foreign country imports the most to the United States. Why? Because it doesn't matter in regard to the question I asked you. The one you refuse to answer. But to make you happy I found some recent stats. Tell me if they are not similar to the ones you found. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html
1. Canada - 19.3%
2. Saudi Arabia - 14%
3. Mexico - 13.5%
4. Venezuela - 12.5%
5. Nigeria - 12.1%
6. Iraq - 5%
Hmmmm... What can we garner from this? First of all these figures purport that the U.S. imports %76 of our oil. A clear majority.
Next it gets real interesting. While the U.S. Imports 19% of our oil from Canada, from the Middle East the U.S. inports what??? 19%!!!
Or to be incredibly precise Canada imports 0.3% (less than half of one percent) more oil than the Middle East.
But you have gone to great pains to disregard the question.
Lets review the facts:
1. The United states is dependent on foreign oil.
2. The United States Imports Oil from Canada.
3.The United Sates imports oil fom the Middle East.
4. The United Sates is dependent on oil from the Canada.
The United States is dependent on oil from the Middle east.
5. The United States has a tenuous relationship with Arab Nations.
So I will ask you once again to clarify your position. Exactly how does the United States dependence on foreign oil help our economy?
How about national security?
If you recall, I already explained that I'm not going to give you the time of day until you retract the comparison of me to a Holocaust denier because I don't feel like accepting your claims without citation. Incidentally, the link in question isn't dead. But anyhow, since you keep changing your argument, I'm also planning to wait until you find one that you're willing to stick with.
So I read your final comment on "the final fool" blog.
I'll respond here: This isn't quantum physics! Everything I have said on the blog is basic information. Your asking me to source things like the explanation of the greenhouse effect! This is most all stuff even "your" scientists agree with. I don't think even they take the volcano theory seriously. I really do think Sean Hannity came up with that one. I'm not kidding. You might consider a better argument.
As science goes, its the equivalent of asking me to source where I ever heard Abraham Lincoln was the 5th president! ( Oh you sayy he was a republican, but can you prove it..) (see I did not say holocaust this time, -happier I hope)
I mean one quick web search on global warming, Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect and you will find everything I have told you. Periodically I will source something if I have to go back and look for an answer I don't already know, but thats it. Its a fucking blog.
If you want to refute it, you should be able to do so on your own merit because you know what your talking about.
So I am still waiting for your answer to the questions you've been avoiding.
So then, If you want prove your point, then answer the question.
I'm asking you to source things like the claim about CO2 causing a mean increase in global temperature. I'm asking you to source things like the volcano thing (pointing to a blog where something is mentioned and letting someone wander around until they find the scientific source 2 websites away doesn't count as "sourcing"). I'm asking you to source things like your claim that anthropogenic causes only started forcing temperature increases in the 20th century. These aren't "commonly accepted" assertions nor are they true just because you declare it to be so. Yes, you proved the volcano thing but only because I decided to click on links until I found your proof; you didn't provide it yourself.
You're missing the point, jonny. It's not my job to wander around the web until I prove your claims. I have no need to refute something that you feel no need to prove is something more than a rumor you found somewhere and believe just because you generally believe in anthropogenic global warming. I'm still waiting for you to prove that you have a scientific leg to stand on before I bother to pull out my sources to refute you; until you have that scientific leg, there's nothing to refute. I'm also still waiting for the retraction of the Holocaust denier comparison.
I'm still waiting for your answer?
Whats wrong? Stumped aren'tcha.
You have my conditions for an answer, stated at least 3-4 times, jonny. When those conditions are met, you get your answer. Until then, however, I'm not going to use up part of my alotted 24 hours of the day meticulously citing sources for someone who refuses to do the same.
I will go ahead and source them:
CO2 causing a mean increase in global temperature:
A New perspective on Recent Global Warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society p.1019
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/74/6/pdf/i1520-0477-74-6-1007.pdf
Dr. Vic Camp. Geological Sciences
San Diego State University.
Geological Sciences
San Diego State University
email: vcamp@geology.sdsu.edu
phone: 619-594-7170
"THE INFLUENCE OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS ON
THE OZONE, GREENHOUSE, AND HAZE EFFECTS"
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
and...
Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 267 - 270
DOI: 10.1126/science.1058154
Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
A quote: "The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component. Simulation results using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century agree with our observation-based estimate of the increase in ocean heat content. The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5515/267
Anthropogenic climate forcing as a response to elevated CO2:
NASA; Goddard Institute for Space studies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/
and
US Climate Change Science Program / US Global Change Research Program, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: +1 202 223 6262. Fax: +1 202 223 3065. Email: information@usgcrp.gov. Web: www.usgcrp.gov. Webmaster: WebMaster@usgcrp.gov
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/991118FO.html
a quote from that one:
"Global climate of the 20th century has warmed by 0.7-0.8�C.
Natural (unforced) climate variability cannot explain the magnitude of the observed warming over the 20th century.
Solar irradiance variations are large enough to shape, but not dominate, the observed warming.
The extended warming period between 1910-1940 can be explained by natural variability plus added greenhouse gases. It can also be explained by added greenhouse gases plus increased solar irradiance.
Added greenhouse gases provide, by far, the most plausible hypothesis for explaining the warming of the 20th century."
Nature, 392, pp.779-787.Global Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries
Mann, Michael E., Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm
Isn’t the evidence clear that we are currently experiencing an unprecedented level of temperature increase and that has risen in line with CO2, which is generated by record population levels and demands for energy. Given lack of other evidence that is causing this effect and given common sense, I would presume that it isn’t hard to surmise that if we continue to live as we do and for the world population to continue growing as it is now, we WILL run out of resources, assuming our own wastes don’t kill us first. If we want to avoid doing that, we better address these issues now, or as many of them as we believe we can.
Very good, jonny! After having your arm twisted repeatedly, you're willing to prove that you're not blowing hot air. Would that I didn't have to keep demanding it before you provided it...
The evidence is clear that anthropogentic CO2 is having some effect on the environment. But as a gent pointed out in the opinion section of today's Oregonian, the two factors of solar radiance and natural CO2 are largely ignored when considering global warming. Said gent also helpfully pointed out that the ice caps of both Mars and Earth are following identical patterns of melting and reforming, hinting at the fact that the icecaps of a planet without humans are acting in the same way as the icecaps of a planet with humans.
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html).
That aside, your assertion about us eventually running out of resources and into trouble is correct but only because it's a statement along the lines of "the mountain will eventually be eroded into sand." A book called "The Population Bomb" was written in the 80's claiming that we were all doomed by 2000; Paul Gerlich's assertions have proved hilariously wrong. Forgive me for skepticism about "we're doomed" rhetoric when it's never panned out no matter how often it's repeated.
Anyhow, when I have sufficient time to collect my firepower, I'll post it... my sources are hard copy in this instance and I can't rapidly Google and paste them.
As an aside, I found this site interesting, jonny, and want your analysis of it:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It takes part of its conclusions from here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf ...which includes this quote:
"Water Vapor (H2O). Overall, the most abundant and dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Water vapor is neither long-lived nor well mixed in the atmosphere, varying spatially from 0 to 2 percent (IPCC 1996). In addition, atmospheric water can exist in several physical states including gaseous, liquid, and solid. Human activities are not believed to directly affect the average global concentration of water vapor; however, the radiative forcing produced by the increased concentrations of other greenhouse
gases may indirectly affect the hydrologic cycle. A warmer atmosphere has an increased water
holding capacity; yet, increased concentrations of water vapor affects the formation of clouds,
which can both absorb and reflect solar and terrestrial radiation. Aircraft contrails, which
consist of water vapor and other aircraft emittants, are similar to clouds in their radiative forcing effects (IPCC 1999)."
Keith, go back and read the links. Even when Solar effects are factored in, It turns out that anthropogenic forcing is causing most of the warming.
By the way Keith I have been twisting your arms for days to give me an answer.
The problem for you is that you are stumped. Its called losing the argument, Kieth
STUMPED? By you? Oh, don't make me laugh. If you spend days on end stubbornly refusing to cite any sources for your claims, you've got alot of chutzpuh pretending that the burden of proof was on me all along. Go enjoy your little fantasy world, jonny... if it was an honest debater like iknowhowtospell, it'd be worth the time and effort to assemble all my citations but you can't even be honest about events that have happened within the last couple days. I'm done feeding your inflated sense of your own superiority on this issue; believe what you will.
Are you kidding?
Nice try getting around it but i've had you all along on this. I ve been waiting and waiting for you to defend your position. And guess what? You haven't done it.
The only thing you came up with was your volcano theory, which I've already proven wrong (and sourced it from a reliable a source). Then you try to make a weak claim that global warming is caused by solar effects and not anthropogenic carbon releases, which was already addressed and proven wrong in one of the journal articles I sent you.
Rather than give any evidence to support your claim, your main point all along is that I must be wrong and that I need to prove my sources. And I took the time to look up reliable sources just for you. So if you SAY your not stumped then answer the questions, Keith. Quite frankly your a bit of a pain in the butt. Talking to you is just like talking to Klatu, only with bigger words. You obviously can not justify your position.
Keep believing that, jonny. So does your invisible pink unicorn like Gala or Granny Smith apples? I wouldn't want to offend her delicate tastes.
Ah, but the difference between me and Klatu is that I recognize when I'm talking to someone who can't be reasoned with and operates from a position of profond intellectual dishonesty; he doesn't even know what those words mean.
The problem with you is you are arrogant. Even when you are presented with the facts, you still grasp on to your baseless point of view. You can't even defend your position, as seen here.
You just believe your thing because somebody told you it once, and thats what you want to believe. Your a lemming.
jonny, you can't incite me to treat you as an honest debater by making baseless accusations. You still haven't retracted the Holocaust denier comparison.
And just what is a lemming, jonny? I really want to hear you explain it because I might be able to have a laugh at your expense.
Sorry keith you lost the argument. You haven't given one iota of evidence to support your position.
And when cornered with facts, as you were with the oil question, you just dodge the question. I'm calling you on it. LEMMING, LOL!!
Right now I am imagining you blindly jumping off a cliff as you follow your heroes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.
Get a life.
And you had to be arm-twisted to come clean. If you were iknowhowtospell and I regarded you as an honest debater, I'd crank out the sources. But I don't so I won't.
See, I knew that if I let you keep talking, you'd expose ignorance. The conception that lemmings follow each other off cliffs in a mass suicide is a popular myth. (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp) Try a more intelligent analogy. Also try finding out who I listen to on the radio because only one of the people you mentioned are ones I listen to. Sorry, thanks for playing.
Maybe duct tape would help?
Hey, don't diss duct tape! You can fix just about everything with it! Even ice shelves... you just need a few hundred miles of it. ;) I'm curious, though... how is what happened to the ice shelf distinct from the shearing that is typical of glaciers?
By the by, iknowhowtospell... sorry I occassionally use your name as a bludgeon. But who else would I use as a more sober debater from the other side of the spectrum?
You got "Owned", Keith. Better luck next time.
You got "0wned", jonny. Better luck next time. See? I can say it too!
Keith, your embarrasing upirself. The answer is because its an ice shelf about seven times the size of Manhattan and its collapse puts an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk.
"While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades...
Scientists say it's a sign of worsening global warming. Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
"These are things that are not re-forming," Das said. "So once they're gone, they're gone."
The debate about weather global warming was occuring ended a long time ago. I'm sorry you weren't on that train but that's your problem.
Its really not about who speaks last. The content speaks for itself. You can not defend your position. You said you, would come back when you found some "firepower". And I even gave you many chances to do so. Time to accept your defeat keith.
Or chortle on like an idiot, I don't care.
I hope you realize that you're not "iknowhowtospell", jonny. I'll wait for iknowhowtospell to answer since you seemed unable to.
When I'm defeated, I'll accept it. But someone declaring that I'm defeated because, in their opinion, they've won doesn't constitute defeat.
Actually the answer was in the article, itself. If you would have even bothered to read it.
To help your disposition, I thought I'd leave you with some reading material.
.................................................................
Acceleration of global warming
due to carbon-cycle feedbacks
in a coupled climatemodel
Peter M. Cox*, Richard A. Betts*, Chris D. Jones*, Steven A. Spall*
& Ian J. Totterdell²
* Hadley Centre, The Met Of®ce, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
² Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH,
UK
...................................
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to
lead to signifcant changes in climate1. About half of the current
emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land
ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3,4 as well
as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a
feedback loop. General circulation models have generally
excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using
static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from
simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6.
Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional
carbon±climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks
could signi®cantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-®rst
century. We ®nd that under a `business as usual' scenario, the
terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about
2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake
rate of 5Gt Cyr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our
fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2,
resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4K
without the carbon-cycle feedback.
The general circulation model (GCM) that we used is based on
the third Hadley Centre coupled ocean±atmosphere model,
HadCM37, which we have coupled to an ocean carbon-cycle
model (HadOCC) and a dynamic global vegetation model (TRIFFID).
The atmospheric physics and dynamics of our GCM are
identical to those used in HadCM3, but the additional computational
expense of including an interactive carbon cycle made it
necessary to reduce the ocean resolution to 2.58 ´ 3.758, necessitating
the use of ¯ux adjustments in the ocean component to counteract
climate drift. HadOCC accounts for the atmosphere±ocean
exchange of CO2, and the transfer of CO2 to depth through both the
solubility pump and the biological pump8. TRIFFID models the
state of the biosphere in terms of the soil carbon, and the structure
and coverage of ®ve functional types of plant within each model
gridbox (broadleaf tree, needleleaf tree, C3 grass, C4 grass and
shrub). Further details on HadOCC and TRIFFID are given in
Methods.
The coupled climate/carbon-cycle model was brought to equilibrium
with a `pre-industrial' atmospheric CO2 concentration of
290 p.p.m.v., starting from an observed landcover data set9. The
resulting state was stable, with negligible net land±atmosphere and ocean±atmosphere carbon ¯uxes in the long-term mean, and no
discernible drift in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This simulation
produces the locations of the main land biomes, and estimates of
ocean carbon (38,100 Gt C), vegetation carbon (493 Gt C), soil
carbon (1,180 Gt C) and terrestrial net primary productivity
(60 Gt Cyr-1) that are within the range of other estimates2,10±12.
Ocean primary productivity is also compatible with results derived
from remote sensing13,14, producing a global-mean total of
53 Gt Cyr-1, and realistic seasonal and latitudinal variations15.
The simulated carbon cycle displays signi®cant interannual
variability, which is driven by the model-generated El NinÄo/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO). A realistic response to internal climate
variability is an important prerequisite for any carbon-cycle model
to be used in climate change predictions. Fluctuations in annualmean
atmospheric CO2 are correlated with the phase of ENSO, as
indicated by the Nino3 index (Fig. 1). During El NinÄo conditions
(positive Nino3), the model simulates an increase in atmospheric
CO2; this increase results from the terrestrial biosphere acting as a
large source (especially in Amazonia16), which is only partially offset
by a reduced outgassing from the tropical Paci®c Ocean. The
opposite is true during the La NinÄa phase. The overall sensitivity
of the modelled carbon cycle to ENSO variability is consistent with
the observational record17, demonstrating that the coupled system
responds realistically to climate anomalies.
Transient simulations were carried out for 1860±2100, using CO2
emissions as given by the IS92a scenario18. Other greenhouse gases
were also prescribed from IS92a, but the radiative effects of sulphate
aerosols were omitted. Three separate runs were completed to
isolate the effect of climate/carbon-cycle feedbacks; an experiment
with prescribed IS92a CO2 and ®xed vegetation (that is, a `standard'
GCM climate change simulation), an experiment with interactive
CO2 and dynamic vegetation but no direct effects of CO2 on climate
(akin to `of¯ine' carbon-cycle projections that neglect climate
change6), and a fully coupled climate/carbon-cycle simulation.
Figure 2 shows results from the fully coupled run. From 1860 to
2000, the simulated stores of carbon in the ocean and on land
increase by about 100 Gt C and 75 Gt C, respectively. However, the
atmospheric CO2 is 15±20 p.p.m.v. too high by the present day
(corresponding to a timing error of about 10 years). Possible reasons
for this include an overestimate of the prescribed net land-use
emissions and the absence of other important climate forcing
factors. The modelled global mean temperature increase from
1860 to 2000 is about 1.4 K (Fig. 3b), which is higher than
observed19, probably due to the absence of cooling from anthropogenic
aerosols20. Of¯ine tests suggest that such a relative warming
can suppress the terrestrial carbon sink by enhancing soil and plant
respiration11. Nevertheless, the rate of increase of CO2 from 1950 to
2000 closely follows the recent observational record, which implies
that the airborne fraction is being well simulated over this period.
For the 20 years centred on 1985, the mean land and ocean uptake of
carbon are 1.5 and 1.6 Gt yr-1, respectively (compare best estimates
for the 1980s of 1.8 6 1.8 and 2.0 6 0.8 Gt yr-1)2. The model
therefore captures the most important characteristics of the present-
day carbon cycle.
The simulated atmospheric CO2 diverges much more rapidly
from the standard IS92a concentration scenario in the future. First,
vegetation carbon in South America begins to decline, as a drying
and warming of Amazonia initiates loss of forest (Fig. 4a). This is
driven purely by climate change, as can be seen by comparing the
fully coupled run (red lines) to the run without global warming
(blue lines). The effects of anthropogenic deforestation on landcover
are neglected in both cases. A second critical point is reached
at about 2050, when the land biosphere as a whole switches from
being a weak sink for CO2 to being a strong source (Fig. 2). The
reduction in terrestrial carbon from around 2050 onward is associated
with awidespread climate-driven loss of soil carbon (Fig. 4b).
An increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 alone tends to
increase the rate of photosynthesis and thus terrestrial carbon
storage, provided that other resources are not limiting4. However,
plant maintenance and soil respiration rates both increase with
temperature. As a consequence, climate warming (the indirect effect
of a CO2 increase) tends to reduce terrestrial carbon storage11,
especially in the warmer regions where an increase in temperature is
not bene®cial for photosynthesis. At low CO2 concentrations the
direct effect of CO2 dominates, and both vegetation and soil carbon
increase with atmospheric CO2. But as CO2 increases further,
terrestrial carbon begins to decrease, because the direct effect of
CO2 on photosynthesis saturates but the speci®c soil respiration rate
continues to increase with temperature. The transition between
these two regimes occurs abruptly at around 2050 in this experiment
(Fig. 4b). The carbon stored on land decreases by about 170 Gt C
from 2000 to 2100, accelerating the rate of atmospheric CO2
increase over this period.
The ocean takes up about 400 Gt C over the same period, but at a
rate which is asymptotically approaching 5Gt Cyr-1 by 2100. This
reduced ef®ciency of oceanic uptake is partly a consequence of the
nonlinear dependence of the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 on
the total ocean carbon concentration, but may also have contributions
from climate change3. Although the thermohaline circulation
of the ocean weakens21 by about 25% from 2000 to 2100, this is
much less of a reduction than seen in some previous simulations22,
and the corresponding effect on ocean carbon uptake is less
signi®cant. In our experiment, increased thermal strati®cation
due to warming of the sea surface suppresses upwelling, which
reduces nutrient availability and lowers primary production by
about 5%. However, ocean-only tests suggest a small effect of
climate change on oceanic carbon uptake, as this reduction in the
biological pump is compensated by reduced upwelling of deep
waters which have high concentrations of total carbon.
By 2100 the modelled CO2 concentration is about 980 p.p.m.v. in
the coupled experiment, which is more than 250 p.p.m.v. higher
than the standard IS92a scenario or that simulated in the `of¯ine'
experiment (Fig. 3a). As a result, the global-mean land temperatures
increase from 1860 to 2100 by about 8K, rather than the 5.5 Kof the
standard scenario (Fig. 3b).
These numerical experiments demonstrate the potential importance
of climate/carbon-cycle feedbacks, but the magnitude of these
in the real Earth system is still highly uncertain. Terrestrial carbon
models differ in their responses to climate change11,12, owing to gaps
in basic understanding of processes. For example, the potential
conversion of the global terrestrial carbon sink to a source is
critically dependent upon the long-term sensitivity of soil respiration
to global warming, which is still a subject of debate23. The
experiments presented here exclude the potentially large direct
human in¯uences on terrestrial carbon uptake through changes in
landcover and land management. Local effects, such as the possible
climate-driven loss of the Amazon rainforest, rest upon uncertain
aspects of regional climate change, and may be `short-circuited' by
direct human deforestation. A full assessment of the uncertainties
must await further coupled experiments utilizing alternative representations
of processes and including a more complete set of naturaland anthropogenic forcing factors (for example, land-use change,
forest ®res, sulphate aerosol concentrations and nitrogen deposition).
However, our results indicate that it will be essential to
accurately represent previously neglected carbon-cycle feedbacks
if we are to successfully predict climate change over the next 100
years. M
Methods
Ocean carbon-cycle model
The inorganic component of HadOCC has been extensively tested as part of the Ocean
Carbon Cycle Intercomparison Project; it was found to reproduce tracer distributions to
an accuracy consistent with other ocean GCMs24. The biological component treats four
additional ocean fields: nutrient, phytoplankton, zooplankton and detritus8. The phytoplankton
population changes as a result of the balance between growth, which is
controlled by light level and the local concentration of nutrient, and mortality, which is
mostly as a result of grazing by zooplankton. Detritus, which is formed by zooplankton
excretion and by phyto- and zooplankton mortality, sinks at a ®xed rate and slowly
remineralizes to reform nutrient and dissolved inorganic carbon. Thus both nutrient and
carbon are absorbed by phytoplankton near the ocean surface, pass up the food chain to
zooplankton, and are eventually remineralized from detritus in the deeper ocean. The
model also includes the formation of calcium carbonate and its dissolution at depth
(below the lysocline).
Terrestrial carbon-cycle model
TRIFFID (top-down representation of interactive foliage and ¯ora including dynamics)
has been used of¯ine in a comparison of dynamic global vegetation models11. Carbon
¯uxes for each vegetation type are calculated every 30 minutes as a function of climate and
atmospheric CO2 concentration, from a coupled photosynthesis/stomatal-conductance
scheme25,26, which utilizes existing models of leaf-level photosynthesis in C3 and C4
plants27,28. The accumulated ¯uxes are used to update the vegetation and soil carbon every
10 days. The natural landcover evolves dynamically based on competition between the
vegetation types, which is modelled using a Lotka±Volterra approach and a tree±shrub±
grass dominance hierarchy. We also prescribe some agricultural regions, in which grasslands
are assumed to be dominant. Carbon lost from the vegetation as a result of local
litterfall or large-scale disturbance is transferred into a soil carbon pool, where it is broken
down by microorganisms that return CO2 to the atmosphere. The soil respiration rate is
assumed to double for every 10 Kof warming29, and is also dependent on the soil moisture
content30. Changes in the biophysical properties of the land surface5, as well as changes in
terrestrial carbon, feed back onto the atmosphere.
Received 6 January; accepted 26 September 2000.
1. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 1996).
2. Schimel, D. et al. in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change Ch. 2 (eds Houghton, J. T. et
al.) 65±131 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).
3. Sarmiento, J., Hughes, T., Stouffer, R. & Manabe, S. Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to
anthropogenic climate warming. Nature 393, 245±249 (1998).
4. Cao, M. & Woodward, F. I. Dynamic responses of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling to global
climate change. Nature 393, 249±252 (1998).
5. Betts, R. A., Cox, P. M., Lee, S. E. & Woodward, F. I. Contrasting physiological and structural
vegetation feedbacks in climate change simulations. Nature 387, 796±799 (1997).
6. Enting, I., Wigley, T. & Heimann, M. Future Emissions and Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide; Key
Ocean/Atmosphere/Land Analyses (Technical Paper 31, Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO,
Melbourne, 1994).
7. Gordon, C. et al. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the
Hadley Centre coupled model without ¯ux adjustments. Clim. Dyn. 16, 147±168 (2000).
8. Palmer, J. R.& Totterdell, I. J. Production and export in a global ocean ecosystem model. Deep-Sea Res.
(in the press).
9. Wilson, M. F. & Henderson-Sellers, A. A global archive of land cover and soils data for use in general
circulation climate models. J. Clim. 5, 119±143 (1985).
10. Zinke, P. J., Stangenberger, A. G., Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R. & Olson, J. S. Worldwide Organic Soil
Carbon and Nitrogen Data (NDP-018, Carbon Dioxide Information Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1986).
11. Cramer, W. et al. Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate
change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Change Biol. (in the press).
12. VEMAP Members. Vegetation/ecosystem modelling and analysis project: comparing biogeography
and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial responses to climate change
and CO2 doubling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 9, 407±437 (1995).
13. Longhurst, A., Sathyendranath, S., Platt, T. & Caverhill, C. An estimate of global primary production
in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J. Plank. Res. 17, 1245±1271 (1995).
14. Field, C., Behrenfeld, M., Randerson, J. & Falkowski, P. Primary production of the biosphere:
integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 237±240 (1998).
15. Antoine, D., Andre, J.-M. &Morel, A. Oceanic primary production 2. Estimation at global scale from
satellite (Coastal Zone Color Scanner) chlorophyll. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 57±69 (1996).
16. Tian, H. et al. Effects of interannual climate variability on carbon storage in Amazonian ecosystems.
Nature 396, 664±667 (1998).
17. Keeling, C. D., Whorf, T., Whalen, M. & der Plicht, J. V. Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of
atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature 375, 666±670 (1995).
18. Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. & Varney, S. K. (eds) Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report
to the IPCC Scienti®c Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992).19. Nicholls, N. et al. in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change Ch. 3 (eds Houghton, J. T. et
al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996).
20. Mitchell, J. F. B., Johns, T. C., Gregory, J. M. & Tett, S. F. B. Climate response to increasing levels of
greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376, 501±504 (1995).
21. Wood, R. A., Keen, A. B., Mitchell, J. F. B. & Gregory, J. M. Changing spatial structure of the
thermohaline circulation in response to atmospheric CO2 forcing in a climate model. Nature 399,
572±575 (1999).
22. Sarmiento, J. & Quere, C. L. Oceanic carbon dioxide uptake in a model of century-scale global
warming. Nature 274, 1346±1350 (1996).
23. Giardina, C. & Ryan, M. Evidence that decomposition rates of organic carbon in mineral soil do not
vary with temperature. Nature 404, 858±861 (2000).
24. Orr, J. C. in Ocean Storage of Carbon Dioxide, Workshop 3: International Links and Concerns (ed.
Ormerod, W.) 33±52 (IEA R&D Programme, CRE Group Ltd, Cheltenham, UK, 1996).
25. Cox, P. M.,Huntingford, C. & Harding, R. J. A canopy conductance and photosynthesis model for use
in a GCM land surface scheme. J. Hydrol. 212±213, 79±94 (1998).
26. Cox, P. M. et al. The impact of new land surface physics on theGCMsimulation of climate and climate
sensitivity. Clim. Dyn. 15, 183±203 (1999).
27. Collatz, G. J., Ball, J. T., Grivet, C. & Berry, J. A. Physiological and environmental regulation of
stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration: a model that includes a laminar boundary
layer. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 54, 107±136 (1991).
28. Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M. & Berry, J. A. A coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model
for leaves of C4 plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19, 519