S AMPLES OF ICE DATING BACK HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE SHEETS COVERING ANTARCTICA AND GREENLAND. THESE CORES SHOW THAT AT THE END OF RECENT ICE AGES, THE LEVEL
OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE OFTEN DID NOT START TO RISE UNTIL TEMPERATURES HAD ALREADY BEEN CLIMBING FOR SOME TIME.
There is uncertainty about the precise timing, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice itself, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
These lags show that rising CO2 did not trigger the initial warming at the end of these ice ages—but then , no one claims it did. They do not undermine the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits infrared. Fairly basic physics proves that such gases will trap heat radiating from Earth, and that the planet would be a lot colder if this did not happen.
This does not mean that there will be a perfect correlation between past temperature and past CO2 levels. Many other factors also affect the climate: when there are big changes in these factors, the relationship between CO2 and temperature will he obscured.
SO WHY, OVER THE PAST MILLION YEARS OR SO, HAS EARTH REPEATEDLY SWITCHED BETWEEN ICE AGES AND WARMER PERIODS?
The long-held theory is that this is due to variations in Earth’s orbit — known as Milankovitch cycles — that change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. These correspond with most — but not all — climate transitions. However, their direct heating or cooling effect is small, and does not fully explain the temperature switches.
This suggests that some kind of feedback eftèct amplified the initial changes in temperatures. The ice itself is one contender here. As vast ice sheets started to shrink, less of the sun’s energy would have been reflected back into space, thus accelerating the warming.
The possibility that CO2 also plays a role was suggested more than a century ago. The icc cores show that there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half-million years. It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial lag, temperature and CO. concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for at least 4000 odd years.
What seems to have happened at the end of ice ages is that an initial warming due to orbital shifts led to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, resulting in further warming that caused still more CO2 to be released and so on. As the area of ice shrank, temperatures rose still higher.
Where did the extra CO2 come from? The evidence suggests it was from the oceans. The gas is less soluble in warmer water, so warmer seas release it into the air, but this can explain only a little of the increase. Another factor may have been biological: phytoplankton in the seas soak up CO2 as they grow and fall to the ocean floor, but as the world warmed changes in winds, currents and salinity would have cut the phytoplankton’s growth.
While CO2 was only a secondary player in the ice ages, further back in time there are examples of warming triggered by rises in CO2. What the ice ages tell us is that temperature can influence CO2 levels as well as vice versa, which is a cause for concern. At the moment, the oceans are soaking up 40 per cent of the extra CO2 we are emitting. If they switch to emitting CO2 instead, cuts in human emissions will make little difference. •
* * * * * * * *
FIRST, IT NEEDS TO BE SAID THAT EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES BEFORE ABOUT
150 YEARS AGO IS AN ESTIMATE ---—- A RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON SECOND-HAND EVIDENCE SUCH AS ICE CORES AND A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS. The further back we look, the greater the uncertainties.
It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today . In some cases the main factors that caused these climatic variations are well understood, though not in all.
From 750 million to 580 million years ago, Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since. At times the whole planet may have been covered in ice and snow, a phenomenon known as Snowball Earth.
Why did this happen? The balance between two opposing effects may have been crucial. The growth of ice sheets can lead to extra cooling as more of the sun’s heat gets reflected back into space . However, ice on land blocks the weathering of rocks, a process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Snowball Earth may have come about because the continents were then clustered on the equator: weathering would have continued to remove CO2 even as ice sheets spread from the poles. Only when most of the land was iced over would greenhouse gases have started to build up.
After this deep freeze, there were long periods when both greenhouse gas levels and temperatures were higher than they are today, though there is great uncertainty about the details. The warmest period was probably the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago. During this event, which coincided with mass extinctions, global temperatures may have warmed by 5 to 8 degrees C within a few thousand years. The Arctic Ocean reached 23 degrees C.
Isotope levels in fossil plankton show the warming was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. The latest theory is that this was due to lava from a massive volcanic eruption heating coal deposits. In other words, this may bean example of catastrophic global warming caused by the sudden release of massive quantities of fossil carbon into the atmosphere . The warm period lasted 200,000 years.
Over the past few million years Earth has switched between ice ages and warmer interglacials. These periodic changes seem to be triggered by oscillations in the planet’s orbit that alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.
In between ice ages, there have been several temperature peaks, notably during the Eemian interglacial around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been 1 to 2 degrees C warmer than today, and the sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than it is now.
After the last ice age, there was another peak around 6ooo years ago called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. This warming appears to have been largely regional, though, and temperatures were probably not much higher than in recent decades, if at all.
Do these past periods of natural warming mean we can dismiss the rapid warming over the past few years as more of the same?
THE ANSWER IS NO. Natural factors such as changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth can explain only a small part of the recent warming.
Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods — enough to submerge many major cities.
* * * * * * *
YES, IT’S TRUE THAT CO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY ARE SMALL COMPARED WITH MOST NATURAL SOURCES.
Yet ice cores show that levels in the atmosphere have remained fairly steady at between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-million years, only to shoot up to more than 380 ppm since the industrial age began.
How is this possible? The answer is that natural sources are balanced by natural sinks The breakdown of organic matter, for instance, releases huge quantities of but growing plants soak up just as much. CO2 levels have risen because slightly more of the gas has been entering the atmosphere each year than can be soaked up by natural sinks.
How can we be sure that we are responsible for the extra CO2? There are several lines of evidence. For instance, fossil fuels contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6ooo years. Nearly all the carbon-14 in a fossil fuel will have long decayed by the time we burn the fuel, so the resulting CO2 will contain almost no carbon-14 too. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the air dropped by about 2 per cent between 1850 and 1954 (after 1954, nuclear tests released large amounts of carbon-14).
Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO than human activities are simply not true. CO2 levels around the world do not rise after major eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 gigatonnes of CO2 each year — about a hundredth of human emissions — and are balanced by the carbon carried under tectonic plates in subducted ocean sediments. •
* * * * * * * *
HOW WILL CLIMATE WARMING AFFECT YOU?
IT DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE,------HOW LONG YOU LIVE, -----WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING ---- AND FOR RECREATION — AND WHETHER YOU CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF YOUR CHILDREN, OR HUMANITY IN GENERAL.
Just about every part of the planet except Antarctica has warmed since the 1970s. Glaciers are melting, spring is coming earlier and the ranges of many plants and animals are shifting polewards.
For most people, this has made little difference. We may have sweltered through more hcatwaves, but winters have been milder. The next decade or two will also be a mixed bag . Heating bills will go down, air-conditioning bills will go up. Heatwaves may cause some deaths but there will be fewer cold-related deaths.
This does not sound too bad, and for many people it won’t be. In cooler regions the benefits could outweigh the downsides, depending on your point of view. Wealthy individuals and countries will be able to adapt to most short-term changes, whether it means buying an air conditioner or switching to crops better suited to a warmer climate and changing rainfall patterns . Overall, agricultural yields could increase at first.
Some regions will suffer, however, and soon: Africa will fare worst, with yields predicted to halve in some countries as early as 2020. Wildlife will also be in trouble. Certain plants and animals will thrive as CO2 rises, but at the expense of others. Coral reefs, which are already suffering frequent bleaching episodes, will be especially hard hit.
Things will become increasingly dire as temperatures climb to 3 degrees C above present levels, which could happen long before the end of the century in the worst- case scenario. More than a third of species will face extinction. Agricultural yields will fall in most parts of the world. Millions will beat risk from coastal flooding. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfsres will take an ever heavier toll.
There are two factors to bear in mind
when thinking about th e outcomes of warming.
Firstly, even countries that escape the worst direct effects will feel the economic and political fallout from what happens elsewhere. Secondly, there is a time lag between a rise in greenhouse gases and their full effect on climate. Even if CO2 levels were stabilized tomorrow, the world would continue to warm for decades.
There is an even longer lag between any warming and its full effect on sea level. The IPCC is predicting a rise of 0.6 metres at most by 2100, but this will be just the start. Three million years ago, when the temperature was 2 to 3 degrees C higher, sea level was 25 metres higher ---- more than enough to inundate New York, London, Tokyo and Shanghai.
A similar temperature increase will eventually lead to a similar rise in sea level. The IPCC assumes this will take many centuries, but some think it could happen much sooner due to the catastrophic collapse of ice sheets.
What’s clear is that the longer we delay effective action, the harder it will be to prevent catastrophic climate change.
* * * * * * * *
NO ONE DENIES THE CRUCIAL INFLUENCE
OF THE SUN ON EARTH’S CLIMATE.
The total amount of energy reaching Earth varies, but recent variations cannot explain the recent warming. What if changes in other forms of solar activity have larger-than-expected effects on the climate, though?
In the late 1990s, Danish scientists revived the idea that the high-energy particles known as cosmic rays might influence cloud formation by ionising the atmosphere If so this could amplify the effect of small changes in solar activity on the climate. Though most cosmic rays come from deep space, changes in solar activity can alter the number that reach Earth. When there are many sunspots, the sun’s magnetic field strengthens, deflecting more of the cosmic rays in the solar system.
Hcnrik Svensmark of the Danish National - Space Center claims that fewer cosmic rays would mean fewer clouds, so warming Earth He thinks this effect explains the recent warming, arguing the case in a book he wrote with science journalist Nigel Calder (who edited New Scientist from 1962 to 1966).
There are at least three separate issues here. Firstly, do cosmic rays really trigger cloud formation? Secondly, if they do, how do the changes in cloud cover affect temperature? Finally, can this explain the warming trend of the past few decades?
The hypothesis is that the ionisation of air by cosmic rays imparts an electric charge to aerosols that encourages them to clump together; the clumps become large enough to trigger the condensation of water, and hence clouds form. As yet there is no convincing evidence that such clumping occurs.
Experiments under way at the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva should settle the issue, but will not reveal if it matters in the real world: the atmosphere already has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei, so it is not clear why cosmic rays should have any great effect on cloud formation.
A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Most recently, he has claimed there is a correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. Yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. What’s more, the correlation holds up after 1995 only if data is “corrected’s and others in the field say this correction is not justified .
“It’s dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis,” says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK . A few independent studies by other groups hint at a very tiny effect on clouds, but most have found no effect.
Thcn there is the question of how clouds and climate interact. Svensmark claims the overall effect of less cloud cover is a warmer world in which the extra heat that clear skies allow in during the day outweighs the increased heat losses at night.
Not all scientists agree with this reasoning, as even during the day many clouds in the upper atmosphere can in fact have a warming effect.
Finally, and most importantly, even if changes in cosmic ray intensity do turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, they cannot explain the rapid warming of the past few decades. Direct measurements going back 50 years show a periodic variation in intensity, but no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming.
Indirect measurements of cosmic rays, based on the abundance of certain isotopes, suggest that their intensity fell between 1900 and 1950. While there can be a lag between a big change in a climate ‘forcing” and its full effect on temperature, most warming should occur within a few years and taper off within decades. This is not the pattern we see.
* * * * * * * *
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA WHICH JUTS OUT FROM THE MAINLAND HAS WARMED. THE CONTINENTS INTERIOR WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE WARMED TOO, BUT IN 2002 AN ANALYSIS OF RECORDS FROM 1966 TO 2000 RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD COOLED.
This is not, as sometimes claimed, proof that the world is not warming. Climate models do not predict uniform warming of the whole planet, and almost every other part of the world is getting warmer.
The cooling in Antarctica is due to a strengthening of the circular winds around the continent, which prevents warmer air reaching the interior. Confusingly, the increased wind speeds seem to be due to cooling in the upper atmosphere caused by the hole in the ozone layer above the pole ---- the result of chlorofluorocarbon emissions . If the ozone layer recovers over the next few decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.
This raises the question of what is happening to Antarctica’s ice sheets, which hold enough water to raise sea levels by a catastrophic 61 metres. Contrary to what you might expect, the lates t IPCC report continues to predict that global warming will lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the next century, with heavier snowfall outweighing any melting.
Finding out what is actually happening to the ice is not easy. A recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries, resulting in a net loss.
The IPCC’s latest predictions of sea level rise —20 to 60 centimetres by 2100— assume that the rate of ice loss from the edges of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continues at the current rate . Some researchers think this is unrealistic and that the ice loss will accelerate, outpacing any increases in snowfall and leading to a much more rapid r ise in sea level. No one knows for sure what will happen.
19 May 2007. (Pgs. 35-41)
Church of the Science of God
La Jolla, California 92038-3131
© Church of the Science of GOD, 1993