Print 78 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jan 25 at 4:23 PM

For all we know, Al Bundy's socks may be the cure for the global climate crisis.

Will the war for global warming ever be won? That depends on the amount of information we can harvest, analyze and extrapolate from. In all likelihood, the only way we will know for certain if the Earth is heading for a global warming disaster is by waiting another few thousand years and looking at history books.

But, for those not comfortable with the wait and see approach, scientists continue to plunge into one of the crucial factors thought to govern global (I’m trying not to snicker) climate change, the global carbon sink system. Roughly composed of just about every living and even more dead things, these parts of local, regional and whole-Earth ecosystems are under high scrutiny as researchers try to understand how present day climate change will further affect future climate change. The popular idea seems to be that global warming is like a snowball rolling downhill – as it rolls it picks up more snow and eventually hits something and explodes. Exploding is bad for the Earth, honest.

From the University of Colorado at Boulder comes a study supporting the theory that extended growing seasons may not be the boon for the carbon sink that many have previously thought. At least not for subalpine conifers such as the lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and Englemann spruce. It turns out these trees depend much more upon snowmelt for their summer water fix than rainfall, and in years where spring comes early due to mild winters and low snowfall, the trees actually take in less carbon dioxide over the year than when spring arrives late with heavy snow still on the ground. Up to 60% of their internal water supply from stems and needles was identified to be from spring snowmelt rather than rainfall in the fall months. We can thank our friends the hydrogen and oxygen atoms for this precise identification work.

Since around 70% of the western USA’s carbon sink is found in these subalpine forest ranges, watching the snow caps shrink yearly would definitely affect their ability to operate to capacity, should this study be accurate. Facts don’t lie; snow good, carbon dioxide bad.

On a somewhat brighter note, according to researchers at the National Oceanographic Center, Southampton, another very large and poorly understood carbon sink may be completely underestimated in present carbon cycle models. Echinoderms, which comprise a vast portion of the ocean’s calcium carbonate dump, may sequester much more carbon yearly than previously thought.

Echinoderms suck in carbon from seawater to form their skeletal systems and include such happy marine animals as star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers. When these animals find the end of their lifecycle, they typically sink to the ocean floor with their captured carbon and become indefinitely buried in the sediments. Some of the calcium carbonate finds its way back up the “biological carbon pump,” but probably much less than is taken down to the depths.

This could mean that the ocean is once again showing itself to be far more excellent at helping regulate global carbon levels, or it could just mean scientists still don’t really understand what’s going on in there.

If these studies only prove one thing it is that we, as a global community, race, organism and observer still have very little understanding in the way all of our ecosystems work together to regulate the Earth’s climate. It’s far too early for any sane person to jump on the “we’re melting, melting” or “Minnesota never left the ice age, what’s your problem” camps. There simply aren’t enough data to concretely support any given theory with certainty and these kinds of discoveries are shining examples of why.

Comments     Threshold


RE: The World is Too Big
By The0ne on 1/11/2010 4:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more on what you said. Add to it all the bickering on the various sides and the average person isn't going to really know what the facts are. The bad science could be equate to the bad business worker. Someone who knows what they've done isn't right and will spend the money, time and resources even at the expense of other people to find a small glimmer of hope...of which 99% of the time will never happen because it was wrong to begin with.

I don't mind doing "good" by using electricity, cutting down on pollution and such but to have to argue this over what people "think" isn't necessary is ridiculous. If that were the case many would not even both properly throwing trash away, cleaning themselves or visit doctors. If one fails to see that doing something, no matter how small is good, then there's no convincing them of anything otherwise. On a larger scale such as global climate changes, that's a bit different because then we have special interests groups involved.

RE: The World is Too Big
By TheEinstein on 1/13/2010 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
There is energy, then there is energy.

Solar energy currently costs more energy to produce, than it will produce in its own lifetime.

Wind energy also is the same.

While advancements happen, we do not subsidize the good advancements, we subsidize the bad advancements.

This is because subsidies are done by politicians, who get paid in cash for campaigns. These politicians then subsidize those who helped them. Subsidies are wrong entirely. Only investment should be allowed.

