[JR: But I said one should say "much of the ocean a hot, acidic dead zone." I have written about this a lot.]

Let me ask you all a question. If phytoplankton levels diminish 30% over the course of 20 years, would that result in an increase, or decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels?

And presuming that the phytoplankton population, the literal LUNGS of the planet, is partially dependent upon wind born dust blowing nutrients to far-flung reaches of the oceans, let me ask another question:

Have our soil conservation methods, and those in other countries, implemented in the interest of preventing dust bowls and increasing crop yields, actually ripped out the planets “lungs”, reducing phytoplankton levels and causing CO2 levels to increase??

It’s pretty simple folks, at least with oceanic phytoplankton. So long as they have all the elements that they require; light; nutrients; water; proper temperature.. etc.. they will GROW in the presence of increase CO2. But if you remove nutrients, they cannot utilize that excess CO2, now can they?

Maybe CO2 increases have MORE to do with desertification of the oceans, than of the land. In fact, maybe the latter is a critical element in restoring the nutritional health of the former.

Just something for you to think about..

Diogenes

“Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

How about weighing realities?

The climate warms and cools cyclically, and would with or without humans. Can you accurately weigh the cost-benefits of channelling valuable resources to investing in CO2 reduction and taxing consumption?

The climate will change. Warming is better than cooling, BTW. And the last time we believed the propaganda and made sweeping changes, millions of children died from malaria.

You and others like you are the ones pushing science beyond its limits to promote a power-driven agenda. Push, push, push.

Well, here’s my little push back. Go outside at noon and look up. What do you see?

Reader’s should contribute in the news of the day section, which Joe started recently. As a group we can contribute – but, individually, post only the gold nuggets – I would expect Joe is “expecting” that from readers.

To stave off climate disaster will require much, much more.

When people hear of a 5 degree rise in temperature, they shrug it off, because daily and seasonal fluctuations of that amount are within their experience. Only when they hear of dust bowls, early bird migrations, deforestation, and ice caps melting do they begin to pay attention. And for years there has been hair-on-fire warning about imminent disaster, from climate change or terrorism or whatever, so they kind of get used to it. Alarm fatigue? Like the Millennium Bug, they hope and expect from past experience that somehow global climate change will all turn out OK.

2009-07 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 14, 2009

Global Warming:
Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would Save Arctic Ice, Reduce Sea Level
Rise

Contacts:

David Hosansky, NCAR/UCAR Media Relations
303-497-8611
hosansky@ucar.edu

Rachael Drummond, NCAR/UCAR Media Relations
303-497-8604
rachaeld@ucar.edu

For scientific contacts, see below.

*****
Note to editors:
Download high-resolution maps of future global warming at
http://www.ucar.edu/ news/ releases/ 2009/ greenhousecuts.jsp
*****

BOULDER–The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if
nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent
this century, according to a new analysis. While global temperatures
would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change,
including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and
significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided.

The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research
Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National
Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

“This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming
during this century,” says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead
author. “But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts,
we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe.”

—–Avoiding dangerous climate change—–

Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius
(almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of
the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases,
predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from
a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the
atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.

With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8
degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the
European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating
the issue.

To examine the impact of such cuts on the world’s climate, Washington
and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the
NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon
dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That
figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has
cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts
conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions
dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750
ppm by 2100 if unchecked.

The team’s results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm,
global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F)
above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study
showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to
2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were
allowed to continue on their present course.

Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts,
according to the climate modeling study:

- Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed
would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters
(8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in
either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
- Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume
and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters
and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice
will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their
current trajectory.
- Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve
fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such
regions as the northern Bering Sea.
- Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased
precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S.
Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450
ppm.
- The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of
continuing to warm.

The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a
business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide
emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they
were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a
particular policy.

“Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they
can make informed decisions,” Washington says. “This study provides some
hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change–if society
can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and
continue major cuts through the century.”

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National
Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

-The End-

Scientific contacts:

Warren Washington, NCAR Scientist
303-497-1321
wmw@ucar.edu

Gerald Meehl, NCAR Scientist
303-497-1331
meehl@ucar.edu

Reto Knutti, Scientist, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science
(Zurich, Switzerland)
reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch

Note to journalists:

To request a copy of the paper, send your name, organization, and phone
number to David Hosansky at hosansky@ucar.edu, Rachael Drummond at
rachaeld@ucar.edu, or Peter Weiss at pweiss@agu.org.

Title:
How Much Climate Change Can Be Avoided by Mitigation?

Authors:
Warren Washington, Reto Knutti, Gerald Meehl, Haiyan Teng, Claudia
Tebaldi, David Lawrence, Lawrence Buja, Gary Strand

Publication:
Geophysical Research Letters

On the Web:

Resources for journalists:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/journalists

Read this and past releases or sign up for e-mail delivery:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases

We have had massive dieback this winter in New Jersey.