Global Warming of the Future is Projected by Ancient Carbon Emissions
New Haven, Conn. — Global warming 55 million years ago suggests a high climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, according to research led by Mark Pagani, associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale and published in the December 8 issue of Science.
For some years, scientists have known that a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere caused the ancient global warming event known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) that began about 55 million years ago. The geologic record shows that the resulting greenhouse effect heated the planet as a whole by about 9° F (5° C), in less than 10,000 years.
That temperature increase lasted about 170,000 years, altered the world’s rainfall patterns, made the oceans acidic, affected plant and animal life in the seas and on land, and spawned the rise of our modern primate ancestors.
“The PETM is a stunning example of carbon dioxide-induced global warming and stands in contrast to critics who argue that the Earth’s temperature is insensitive to increases in carbon dioxide,” said Pagani. “Not only did the Earth warm by at least 9°F (5°C), but it did so during a time when Earth’s average temperature was already 9°F warmer than today.”
However, what has not been clear is how much carbon was responsible for the temperature increase and where it came from. Scientists have speculated that it might have come from massive fires from burning coal and other ancient plant material, or from ‘burps’ of methane from the continental shelves that rapidly became atmospheric carbon dioxide.
“According to this work, if the PETM was caused by the burning of plant material then climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is more than 4.5°F (2.5°C) per carbon dioxide doubling. And if methane was the culprit, then Earth’s climate must be extremely sensitive to carbon dioxide — increasing, over 10°F (5.6°C) per carbon dioxide doubling,” noted Pagani.
This finding contradicts the position held by many climate-change skeptics that the Earth’s climate is resilient to such carbon dioxide emissions and suggests that Earth’s temperature will rise substantially with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that are expected to double around mid-century.
“The last time carbon was emitted to the atmosphere on the scale of what we are doing today, there were winners and losers,” remarked Ken Caldeira, a co-author from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. “There was ecological devastation, but new species rose from the ashes. Our work provides even more incentive to develop the clean energy sources that can provide for economic growth and development without risking the natural world that is our endowment.”
Other authors on the paper include David Archer in the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, and James C. Zachos in the Earth Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise!
According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
Long shadow
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.
But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Land and water
At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.
Remedies
The report, which was produced with the support of the multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:
Land degradation – controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.
Atmosphere and climate – increasing the efficiency of livestock production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.
Water – improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.
These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These discussions also include the substantial public health risks related to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.
Contact:
Christopher Matthews
Media Relations, FAO
christopher.matthews@fao.org
(+39) 06 570 53762
Joined: Apr 03, 2003
Posts: 5634
Location: SoCal, USA
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:33 am
What caused the carbon emissions all those years ago?
_________________ "Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
Mr_C Intern
Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 200
Location: Dallas, TX
Posted:
Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:12 am
CET wrote:
What caused the carbon emissions all those years ago?
libertarianbob01 wrote:
However, what has not been clear is how much carbon was responsible for the temperature increase and where it came from. Scientists have speculated that it might have come from massive fires from burning coal and other ancient plant material, or from ‘burps’ of methane from the continental shelves that rapidly became atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Do they mean to say it wasn't prehistoric SUV's?
not_a_theist Resident
Joined: Jun 07, 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Texas is the home of the players and pimps
Posted:
Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:55 am
damn cows need to stop farting so much.
yaponcha Just Arrived
Joined: Dec 12, 2006
Posts: 7
Posted:
Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:38 am
I was on my way home last night when I heard this story on NPR:
In particular, this is the blurb that caught my attention:
Quote:
"We want them [evangelical leaders, laypersons, college students] to commit themselves as a form of Christian discipleship, to advancing this concern, namely that climate change and all that it encompasses, the care of the earth, creation care as we call it, is something that god makes a claim on them for, right in the scriptures, and they've got to act on this and that's our message. It's a very biblical message and we've attempted to find a biblical idiom, if you will, to communicate it."
I think this is interesting. As a Ph.D. student in atmospheric science, I have yet to encounter this view point from a christian, both inside and outside of our program. The christian students I know in the program have made an effort to separate the concept of global warming from their religion (that is, religion never comes up in conversations on climate). The christians I know outside of the program tend to think that god will take care of them no matter what global warming does and they choose not to think about it. Oh boy, good times!
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1677
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:43 am
yaponcha wrote:
I was on my way home last night when I heard this story on NPR:
In particular, this is the blurb that caught my attention:
Quote:
"We want them [evangelical leaders, laypersons, college students] to commit themselves as a form of Christian discipleship, to advancing this concern, namely that climate change and all that it encompasses, the care of the earth, creation care as we call it, is something that god makes a claim on them for, right in the scriptures, and they've got to act on this and that's our message. It's a very biblical message and we've attempted to find a biblical idiom, if you will, to communicate it."
I think this is interesting. As a Ph.D. student in atmospheric science, I have yet to encounter this view point from a christian, both inside and outside of our program. The christian students I know in the program have made an effort to separate the concept of global warming from their religion (that is, religion never comes up in conversations on climate). The christians I know outside of the program tend to think that god will take care of them no matter what global warming does and they choose not to think about it. Oh boy, good times!
I'd be curious what they think is biblical about environmentalism. I can't think of anything.
yaponcha Just Arrived
Joined: Dec 12, 2006
Posts: 7
Posted:
Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 am
I cannot think of anything biblical about environmentalism either except the phrase used by Richard Cizik in the NPR interview: creation care. So much for the creator taking care of his creation?
Xeon-The-Mg-Pony Graduate Thinker
Joined: May 18, 2006
Posts: 777
Posted:
Wed May 23, 2007 11:27 am
Old thread I know
but non the less in the buy-bull there is a part where god says he made all the animals and plants for us to care for and use
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file