-Caveat Lector-

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [toeslist] Global Warming Fear Growing Over a Sharp Climate
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:53:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Givel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: ?
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Published on Friday, July 13, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Global Warming Fear Growing Over a Sharp Climate Shift
by Usha Lee McFarling

AMSTERDAM -- As climatologists gather here this week to discuss
new research on global warming, a disquieting idea has been
gaining currency -- the possibility that small shifts in global
temperature could lead to sudden and abrupt climate changes.

What makes such projections important is not their likelihood,
which is uncertain, although a growing number of scientists
believe that sudden changes in climate are a possibility.
Instead, the chief significance for policymakers and the public
lies in what the new research suggests about scientific
uncertainty and risk.

Until recently, much of the climate debate has centered on
whether global warming is occurring at all. Most climate models
had assumed a slow, steady increase in temperature and forecast
gradual changes with gradual effects. But newer, more
sophisticated models suggest that the Earth's climate system is
"nonlinear" -- in other words, small changes can have large
effects on everything from ocean and land temperatures to drought
and monsoon patterns, icecaps and tropical rain forests.

Though loath to cry wolf, more and more experts are beginning to
publicly discuss--and personally   fear--changes that are far
more dramatic, and potentially faster, than those at the center
of discussion so far. Some events could permanently alter life on
Earth.

For example, one projection is that melting Arctic ice could
cause a flow of fresh water into the North Atlantic that would
shut down the Gulf Stream this century. That warm current
moderates the European climate, and turning it off would make a
swath of land from London to Stockholm miserable.

"Sometimes very small, innocent changes can trigger huge
changes," said Will Steffen, executive director of the
Sweden-based International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, or IGBP,
which is coordinating the Amsterdam conference. "Sometimes you
hit it with a hammer and nothing happens. We simply do not know.
We are heading into uncharted waters."

In the global warming debate, a chief argument of industry,
joined by Bush administration officials  and some scientists, is
that the U.S. and its allies should not rush into potentially
costly measures to head off possible climate change because our
knowledge of the subject is limited.

Many scientists, however, say that argument is precisely
backward. The possibility of sudden, dramatic climate shifts
means that, although there is a risk that current models are too
pessimistic, there is also a substantial risk that they are too
optimistic.

A prominent advocate of the go-slow school of thought is Sallie
Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, an
expert on how the sun and its heat output have varied through
time.

Her research is funded by federal agencies but she accepts money
-- to "travel around and speak" -- from firms that have advocated
a go-slow approach on global warming. She argues that computer
models are unreliable, exaggerate warming trends, fail to
adequately take into account natural fluctuations in temperature
and do not explain why no warming has been seen in the upper
atmosphere.

"The best evidence says [climate change] is slow to work, so we
have a window of opportunity,"  she said.

As advocates of that school of thought note, many climate
scientists a decade ago feared that global warming could cause a
catastrophic melting of the massive West Antarctic ice sheet.
Such an event would release huge amounts of water into the seas,
devastating many of the world's highly populated, low-lying
coastal areas.

Recent studies, though, suggest that the Antarctic icecap is
stable -- and actually growing as more     precipitation falls
there.

Other scientists argue that because knowledge is uncertain, it is
crucial to begin cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other
so-called greenhouse gases to slow the rate of climate change.

"We could be either under- or overestimating the effect of human
activities on climate," said Robert Watson, chief scientist at
the World Bank and head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. "So why should we be complacent?"

Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist working in Germany who won
the Nobel Prize for explaining the hole in the atmosphere's ozone
layer, makes a similar point. There is not enough room to take
chances with the climate, he argues.

The chief cause of the hole, which appeared over Antarctica in
the final decades of the 20th century, was chlorofluorocarbons --
chemicals used as refrigerants and as propellants in spray cans.
Had chemists earlier in the century decided to use bromine
instead of chlorine to produce coolants -- a mere quirk of
chemistry -- the ozone hole would have been far larger, occurred
all year and severely affected life, he said.

"Avoiding that was just luck," he said, noting that no scientist
had predicted the hole or its impact. "We missed something very
important. There may be more of these things around the corner."

What climate watchers fear most are shifts that could "kick the
climate system" into an entirely new state, said Berrien Moore
III, chairman of the IGBP. That could cause "unpredictable
consequences with cascading effects."

Such shifts have occurred before. A tiny change in the Earth's
orbit, for example, altered precipitation and temperature
patterns enough to convert what was once fertile African savanna
into today's dry Sahara. "There are caves in today's desert that
show giraffes and all kinds of other animals," said Robert J.
Scholes, a South African climatologist.

"Abrupt changes in the Earth's systems can occur when thresholds
are crossed," said Moore, a climate researcher at the University
of New Hampshire. "Those changes may involve rather distant,
telegraphed connections."

One current possibility is the melting of the Arctic sea ice.

Arctic snow and sea ice moderate the climate by covering a
massive portion of the Earth's surface. This white, frozen
blanket reflects sunlight and heat back into space, cooling the
planet. If much of the ice melted and the Arctic Ocean became an
open sea, the resulting big, dark patch would absorb heat and
lead to even more warming.

Oleg Anisimov, an expert on the planet's icy "cryosphere" at the
State Hydrological Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia, said
Thursday that such a shift is already occurring. The snow and
sea-ice cover in the Arctic has decreased 10% since the 1970s,
and the ice has thinned markedly in that time, he said. "Such
changes are already enhancing the greenhouse effect," he said.

Research published June 21 in the journal Nature suggests that
freshwater flows in the Nordic seas are increasing and may be
slowing the crucial circulation of warm water, said Stefan
Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in
Germany.

Anisimov said the increased flow of Siberian rivers also provides
evidence that Arctic waters are freshening. Thawing permafrost in
the region, he said, could also fuel warming by allowing
decomposing material to emit greenhouse gases now trapped in
frozen soil.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to