Hello everyone and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
I’ve finally returned from Paris and completed my other project, so now that I’m in La Plagne skiing, I thought it particularly apt to write a blog post about “Frozen Planet”, especially after seeing the thick ice that had accumulated here. (Thank God London is ice free though, not too big a fan of slush).
Frozen planet was a 2011 documentary series that captured our imagination about the Polar region, 7.2 million people in fact, making it the most watched Natural History series. ( David Attenborough's Frozen Planet tops TV ratings ) Unsurprisingly, viewers seemed to related a lot more to the polar bears in the north and the Adelie penguins in the south. (Don’t we just love those massive beasts that we see in the zoo and those smart, cuddly penguins?) But why exactly was Frozen Planet so popular? Surely, there have been many documentaries that have given us great insights into snippets of animal life as it is.
Alastair Fothergill, Frozen Planet Executive Producer, wrote:
“One of the key aims of the series was to take the audience on a journey to a place most would never be fortunate to go to. The scenery in the Polar Regions is unmatched anywhere on our planet, but capturing its true beauty was an incredible challenge as well.”
( A look back at Frozen Planet )
I have a younger brother who really loves animals, and he would have loved to watch this documentary as well, but probably not specifically this one. Hence, out of curiosity, I asked my many friends who had lauded this as one of the “must-watch” documentaries what exactly had piqued their interest, and one of them had this to say to me:
“It is interesting because of the animals they chose, everyone loves Arctic animals, such as Penguins, whales, polar bears. Though I have no idea why.”
Like what the producers had anticipated, the story of this polar region is interesting because it is mysterious. Mysterious, dangerous and fragile – that is why people love the polar region so much. Mysterious because people had always imagined that the polar region is a place covered by white snow, inhabited by large exciting creatures; dangerous because of its extreme temperatures, and yet again, exciting dangerous animals, and fragile because of the climate change and its effects on the large, beautiful creatures.
All right, so maybe I overplayed it about the animals. Neither am I discounting the wonder that is Frozen Planet with its picturesque scenery and death defying shots (I meant the crew and cast of course).
If we were to examine the impetus behind this UK documentary, we might discover a different side to this documentary. To do this, we need to explore the history of the polar region.
Arctic exploration had begun early in 9th to 13th centuries by Vikings who had first discovered the presence of a white desert. However, it would only be in 1492 that the first explorations of the Arctic were recorded as Europe searched for a westerly passage. In 1845, Sir John Franklin departed England for the Arctic but never returned, unable to survive the harsh weather there. This highlights the long established quest of the human race to “conquer” the Arctic, either scientifically or for resources. Because of the prevailing difficulties that humans face in this difficult terrain, the Arctic, till today remains somewhat mysterious, and often associated with heroic behaviour.
In recent times, however, with the constant need for new sources of coal and other natural resources, the Arctic has started to become a place for geopolitical contest. With the melting ice caps, and improved technology, the Arctic has become easier to conquer. That is exactly what countries have been doing. Cities are increasingly located within the Arctic circle, and funding has increased for Arctic explorations by governments trying to establish their sovereignty over various plots of lands. The Arctic became a place reimagined as an area of great resource potential and scientific discovery.
Like many countries in the world, the UK has also taken a keen interest in the area. In 2009, then then-minister for international defence and security Ann Taylor noted:
“It’s clear to us that security in the Arctic is not foremost a military concern. We are not returning to the Cold War. But security cannot be divorced from economic activity, environmental interests and political considerations.” (Depledge and Dodds 2011, 72)
It is clear that there has been renewed interest in the Arctic from the government: The Canada – UK Colloquium on ‘The Arctic and the Northern Dimension of World Issues’ House of Lords debates in 2010, strategic relationships with Northern Europe. The Geographical influence of the Arctic on the climate system of UK was clear when the Arctic Oscillation triggered UK’s severe weather conditions in 2009 and 2010. Politically, interest in the Arctic has solidified the political alliance between UK, Canada, US and Nordic countries against the supposed threat of Russian interest in the region. Besides all these, there have been increasing debates on the role and responsibilities of sovereign nations on this open, shared space, and the construction of an Arctic Inuit Polity to try and engage indigenous populations in policies on the Arctic that seem to exclude their role and presence within the Arctic diversity (Shadian 2006).
Frozen Planet can be argued to have come in conjunction with renewed interest in these geopolitical issues in the UK revolving around Arctic exploration and sovereignty. It would reignite popular imagination and interest in the region, and at the same time emphasize the British role in conserving the flora and fauna there in a bid to stop the adverse effects of climate change. To viewers, of course, the point of this documentary is to reveal to them the beauty of a place untammed by humans (or so they believe). That is why so much unhappiness arose when viewers realised that the scene on the birth of polar bear cubs was filmed at a zoo. To them, such a revelation disrupted their imagination of how “wild” the Arctic could be.
BBC denies misleading Frozen Planet viewers over polar bear filmed in zoo
)
Why should we be so upset? After all, much research had gone into polar bear livelihood. If filming the scene live would have caused the polar bears there great distress, then documentary filmmakers would have to make do with the next best thing. It is precisely that the unknown needs to remain unknown and mysterious to viewers, and not something in our own backyard that made this documentary as popular as it was. And in that way, create a heightened interest in the Arctic and all its political issues when debates about it appear in the news or political debates. Perfect strategy?
Well, we will never know the true intention of the BBC explorers. After all, if it was all just to support political debates that may not have been in the forefront of people’s interest (especially now with all the budget cuts), then they certainly went to great lengths and harsh conditions to film such a documentary. However, we must know that documentaries also play on prevailing interests during that time, and therefore, may have gotten some inspiration for this new epic show from climate change and political security concerns.
I am not here to say that the documentary was filmed completely without any purpose to inform viewers about the flora, fauna and human impacts on this area. It was truly a remarkable film and very beautifully constructed. I am sure that many people have taken away a lot more about Arctic animals (or at least those they are particularly interested in) from this documentary series. However, I am just examining other possible impetus for this project and the possible implications it has on citizen’s interest in future debates about the future of the Arctic circle.
References:
Shadian, J. (2006) “Remaking Arctic governance: the construction of an Arctic Inuit polity”, Polar Record , 42, 222, 249–259.
Depledge, D. and K. Doods (2011) “The UK and the Arctic”, The RUSI Journal, 156, 3, 72-79.
Edwards, B. (2000) “A Brief History of Arctic Exploration” (WWW) http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ucarctic.htm (Accessed 1 January 2012).
BBC ONE “Frozen Planet”
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Monday, 2 January 2012
Monday, 5 December 2011
Biofuels: The Future?
Hello Everyone! I know its been a week since I've blogged. School work's a killer.
Anyway, I've been reading up on Biofuels and it turns out that there are loads of biofuels: bioethanol, biohydrogen, biodiesel, biomethanol, bio-oil. It's pretty amazing how there can be so many different ways of creating alternative energies. The point of this entry, however, is not to introduce you to the different forms of biofuel, but to analyse the claims in the video about the merits of biofuels. If you have watched the video in the last post, it was mainly a compilation of testimonials about the applicability of biofuels in the energy market and success stories of businesses that have already switched to biofuels.
A quick summary of the video
Distributed in 2007, this video coincided with the USA Government Accountability Office's announcement that "from 2004 to 2006, annual U.S. biodiesel production increased more than 10-fold from 28 million gallons to approximately 287 million gallons." (GAO 2007). Unsurprisingly, the video champions the merits of fuel alternatives such as biodiesel, vegetable oil, and ethanol. Whilst taking jibes at oil politics and mostly slamming the oil industries, they emphasize the need for a "diversified portfolio of energy options, renewable fuel that you can blend into our existing conventional fuels like ethanol and biodiesel blended into diesel fuel and gasoline, going into our existing infrastructure, using our existing vehicles. That's the easiest things we can do. It's easy, it's now, it's available, we can grow it" (From Video: Jobe, CEO National Biodiesel Board).
The title Freedom Fuels imply freedom from oil politics (love the quote on Comedy Central "If [America] is so blessed, why did god put our oil under the people who hate us), freedom for farmers to profit economically, freedom from the shackles of the oil industry and freedom to create new alternatives to develop a sustainable energy culture to ensure that the developed countries' way of life can be maintained.
But besides praising biofuel, it has a section (albeit a little short one) on the impacts that biofuel would have on the environment in terms of the loss of plantations in sensitive areas to produce oil feasts, but solving that with a sustainable system of environmental certificates, all should be fine.
Is it all fine?
In an article by Hill et al. (2006), he states that "to be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies". To generalise that all biofuels are good or bad is inaccurate because each biofuel has its own energy production requirements and environmental costs. For example, a study done by Hill shows that between corn grain ethanol (the one more widely produced in the USA) and soybean biodiesel, there is actually much less NEB from ethanol since it requires a higher energy input to produce corn and convert it to ethanol.
According to Hill et al., they believe that the production of both soyabean biodiesel and ethanol have negative environmental impacts through the movement of agrichemicals. This includes nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticides from farms to habitats and aquifers. The usual assumption that Co2 emission reduction should be the key indicator of the success of a biofuel is largely myopic because CO2 is not the only GHG, nor is it the only environmental marker that affects the earth. Pesticides can contaminate water resources and lead to water poisoning, making the production of biofuels equally unsafe if chemicals are not properly regulated.
Scharlemann and Laurance (2008) are highly skeptical about the benefits of biofuels, discussing how there is a high chance that carbon rich rainforests will be destroyed to provide crops for biofuel. While in the video, this problem seems easily solved through a solid certification scheme, we know from experience that certification schemes are easily breached in developing countries where there is corruption. Furthermore, the terms of the certification schemes are not specific to countries with different economic and ecological contexts, and hence loopholes such as vague phrasing are often exploited to make way for greater economic benefits. If biofuels prove to be very profitable in the future, particularly ethanol biofuel because of its greater applicability in the developed world, we may face a problem of convincing developing countries to preserve their rainforests and forgo the economic benefits of the growing industry.
Furthermore, it was highlighted in the same article that trace gas emissions actually increase with biofuel production. This corroborates the point made by Hill in which nitrous oxide is produced that is also a GHG harmful to the ozone. In order to evaluate if different biofuels are, therefore, environmentally friendly, Zah et al compared gasoline, diesel and natural gas with 26 biofuels for GHG emissions and overall environmental friendliness. It turns out that 21 out of 26 biofuels reduce GHG, but 12 out of 26 have negative environmental impacts, including the economically most important ones such as US corn oil and Malaysian Palm Oil.
Of course, there are even more debates about how truly sustainable biofuels are because it may lead to food scarcity in developing countries (Mol 2007). With the development of local biofuel regions to national biofuel regions, it may increase food prices, such as that of maize in Mexico and sugarcane in Brazil as well as the availability of food to the poor (Runge and Senauer 2007a, 2007b).
Similarly, small scale farmers may be able to produce biofuels through simple processing methods. But the lack of expertise and knowledge mean that energy balances and cost structures show remarkable inefficiencies, making them attractive only in peripheral localities that are not well served by conventional fossil-fuel infrastructure. Rather than a complement to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, it is the only viable alternative, hence not really contributing to this vision of a diversified energy system.
Not everyone is against the use of biofuels. Demirbas (2007) analyses the molecular compositions of each type of biofuel (bioethanol, biohydrogen, biodiesel, biomethanol and bio-oil) and believes that biofuels should be considered relevant technologies by both developing and industrial countries in the future. Of course this is only possible in the future when there is a better alternative energy governance system and modifications to infrastructure. The overarching belief that the benefits of biofuel in reducing GHG and hence environmental pollution is the position many are taking to push for increased production of biofuels and reduced reliance on money sucking, environmentally irresponsible oil companies (not as though oil companies cannot adapt accordingly to changing economic trends).
You may think that the biofuel debates are mostly over. So much research has already been done to prove the benefits and costs of biofuels. But is seems that that is hardly the case. Facts are debatable as to the costs and benefits of biofuels because of the methods employed to measure such costs or benefits. Some believe that in ethanol production, more energy is used than produced while others think that it uses less energy than in produces. People also place different weightage on the costs and benefits of biofuels, thereby declaring them "environmentally friendlier options" or "less environmentally friendly options" accordingly. In the news now, there is constant review of biofuel policies and many environmental news agents are rather sceptical of the perpetuated benefits of biofuels. Even now, biofuels are hotly debated in the news. These are but a few news reports:
EU Commission tightens rules for biofuel use (the need to develop schemes to produce biofuels in a sustainable way)
Biofuels targets are 'unethical', says Nuffield report (current legislations are inadequate for biofuel production)
Kenyans fear Dakatcha Woodlands biofuel expansion (destruction of ecosystems for biofuel expansion)
what are the greenest cars (benefits of hybrid cars)
Bioenergy: Food security proves a worry
Biowaste: Driving Fuels (a quick guide to how many biofuels are produced)
I actually like the idea of biofuels, despite knowing all the costs of the production of biofuels. But I believe that it needs to be thought through carefully before being produced. More importantly, I believe that the more effective way to reduce GHG is to reduce our need for energy which is the root of the problem, rather than trying to create more oil (only perhaps cleaner oil) for our ever growing appetite for energy. (I know this sounds ironic because I am typing away on a computer)
As someone put it clearly in the video, there is no silver bullet solution to the problem of energy and biofuels in the world. We need good, thought out policies. While the documentary spends a disproportionate period praising biofuels, the last few minutes of the video actually allows us to have a glimpse into the real challenges facing the biofuel industry today, that they need to address and overcome.
References:
Demirbas, A. (2007) "Progress and recent trends in biofuels", Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 33, 1-18
Mol, A.P.J. (2007) "Boundless Biofuels? Between Environmental Sustainability and Vulnerability", European Society for Rural Sociology, 47,4, 297 - 315
Scharlemann, J.P.W. and Laurance, W.F. (2008) "How Green Are Biofuels?", Science, 319, 43 - 44
Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D. (2006) "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,103, 30
BBC news reports, Guardian news report, Financial Times news report
Video
Anyway, I've been reading up on Biofuels and it turns out that there are loads of biofuels: bioethanol, biohydrogen, biodiesel, biomethanol, bio-oil. It's pretty amazing how there can be so many different ways of creating alternative energies. The point of this entry, however, is not to introduce you to the different forms of biofuel, but to analyse the claims in the video about the merits of biofuels. If you have watched the video in the last post, it was mainly a compilation of testimonials about the applicability of biofuels in the energy market and success stories of businesses that have already switched to biofuels.
A quick summary of the video
Distributed in 2007, this video coincided with the USA Government Accountability Office's announcement that "from 2004 to 2006, annual U.S. biodiesel production increased more than 10-fold from 28 million gallons to approximately 287 million gallons." (GAO 2007). Unsurprisingly, the video champions the merits of fuel alternatives such as biodiesel, vegetable oil, and ethanol. Whilst taking jibes at oil politics and mostly slamming the oil industries, they emphasize the need for a "diversified portfolio of energy options, renewable fuel that you can blend into our existing conventional fuels like ethanol and biodiesel blended into diesel fuel and gasoline, going into our existing infrastructure, using our existing vehicles. That's the easiest things we can do. It's easy, it's now, it's available, we can grow it" (From Video: Jobe, CEO National Biodiesel Board).
The title Freedom Fuels imply freedom from oil politics (love the quote on Comedy Central "If [America] is so blessed, why did god put our oil under the people who hate us), freedom for farmers to profit economically, freedom from the shackles of the oil industry and freedom to create new alternatives to develop a sustainable energy culture to ensure that the developed countries' way of life can be maintained.
But besides praising biofuel, it has a section (albeit a little short one) on the impacts that biofuel would have on the environment in terms of the loss of plantations in sensitive areas to produce oil feasts, but solving that with a sustainable system of environmental certificates, all should be fine.
Is it all fine?
In an article by Hill et al. (2006), he states that "to be a viable alternative, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies". To generalise that all biofuels are good or bad is inaccurate because each biofuel has its own energy production requirements and environmental costs. For example, a study done by Hill shows that between corn grain ethanol (the one more widely produced in the USA) and soybean biodiesel, there is actually much less NEB from ethanol since it requires a higher energy input to produce corn and convert it to ethanol.
According to Hill et al., they believe that the production of both soyabean biodiesel and ethanol have negative environmental impacts through the movement of agrichemicals. This includes nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticides from farms to habitats and aquifers. The usual assumption that Co2 emission reduction should be the key indicator of the success of a biofuel is largely myopic because CO2 is not the only GHG, nor is it the only environmental marker that affects the earth. Pesticides can contaminate water resources and lead to water poisoning, making the production of biofuels equally unsafe if chemicals are not properly regulated.
Scharlemann and Laurance (2008) are highly skeptical about the benefits of biofuels, discussing how there is a high chance that carbon rich rainforests will be destroyed to provide crops for biofuel. While in the video, this problem seems easily solved through a solid certification scheme, we know from experience that certification schemes are easily breached in developing countries where there is corruption. Furthermore, the terms of the certification schemes are not specific to countries with different economic and ecological contexts, and hence loopholes such as vague phrasing are often exploited to make way for greater economic benefits. If biofuels prove to be very profitable in the future, particularly ethanol biofuel because of its greater applicability in the developed world, we may face a problem of convincing developing countries to preserve their rainforests and forgo the economic benefits of the growing industry.
Furthermore, it was highlighted in the same article that trace gas emissions actually increase with biofuel production. This corroborates the point made by Hill in which nitrous oxide is produced that is also a GHG harmful to the ozone. In order to evaluate if different biofuels are, therefore, environmentally friendly, Zah et al compared gasoline, diesel and natural gas with 26 biofuels for GHG emissions and overall environmental friendliness. It turns out that 21 out of 26 biofuels reduce GHG, but 12 out of 26 have negative environmental impacts, including the economically most important ones such as US corn oil and Malaysian Palm Oil.
Of course, there are even more debates about how truly sustainable biofuels are because it may lead to food scarcity in developing countries (Mol 2007). With the development of local biofuel regions to national biofuel regions, it may increase food prices, such as that of maize in Mexico and sugarcane in Brazil as well as the availability of food to the poor (Runge and Senauer 2007a, 2007b).
Similarly, small scale farmers may be able to produce biofuels through simple processing methods. But the lack of expertise and knowledge mean that energy balances and cost structures show remarkable inefficiencies, making them attractive only in peripheral localities that are not well served by conventional fossil-fuel infrastructure. Rather than a complement to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, it is the only viable alternative, hence not really contributing to this vision of a diversified energy system.
Not everyone is against the use of biofuels. Demirbas (2007) analyses the molecular compositions of each type of biofuel (bioethanol, biohydrogen, biodiesel, biomethanol and bio-oil) and believes that biofuels should be considered relevant technologies by both developing and industrial countries in the future. Of course this is only possible in the future when there is a better alternative energy governance system and modifications to infrastructure. The overarching belief that the benefits of biofuel in reducing GHG and hence environmental pollution is the position many are taking to push for increased production of biofuels and reduced reliance on money sucking, environmentally irresponsible oil companies (not as though oil companies cannot adapt accordingly to changing economic trends).
You may think that the biofuel debates are mostly over. So much research has already been done to prove the benefits and costs of biofuels. But is seems that that is hardly the case. Facts are debatable as to the costs and benefits of biofuels because of the methods employed to measure such costs or benefits. Some believe that in ethanol production, more energy is used than produced while others think that it uses less energy than in produces. People also place different weightage on the costs and benefits of biofuels, thereby declaring them "environmentally friendlier options" or "less environmentally friendly options" accordingly. In the news now, there is constant review of biofuel policies and many environmental news agents are rather sceptical of the perpetuated benefits of biofuels. Even now, biofuels are hotly debated in the news. These are but a few news reports:
EU Commission tightens rules for biofuel use (the need to develop schemes to produce biofuels in a sustainable way)
Biofuels targets are 'unethical', says Nuffield report (current legislations are inadequate for biofuel production)
Kenyans fear Dakatcha Woodlands biofuel expansion (destruction of ecosystems for biofuel expansion)
what are the greenest cars (benefits of hybrid cars)
Bioenergy: Food security proves a worry
Biowaste: Driving Fuels (a quick guide to how many biofuels are produced)
I actually like the idea of biofuels, despite knowing all the costs of the production of biofuels. But I believe that it needs to be thought through carefully before being produced. More importantly, I believe that the more effective way to reduce GHG is to reduce our need for energy which is the root of the problem, rather than trying to create more oil (only perhaps cleaner oil) for our ever growing appetite for energy. (I know this sounds ironic because I am typing away on a computer)
As someone put it clearly in the video, there is no silver bullet solution to the problem of energy and biofuels in the world. We need good, thought out policies. While the documentary spends a disproportionate period praising biofuels, the last few minutes of the video actually allows us to have a glimpse into the real challenges facing the biofuel industry today, that they need to address and overcome.
References:
Demirbas, A. (2007) "Progress and recent trends in biofuels", Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 33, 1-18
Mol, A.P.J. (2007) "Boundless Biofuels? Between Environmental Sustainability and Vulnerability", European Society for Rural Sociology, 47,4, 297 - 315
Scharlemann, J.P.W. and Laurance, W.F. (2008) "How Green Are Biofuels?", Science, 319, 43 - 44
Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Tiffany, D. (2006) "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,103, 30
BBC news reports, Guardian news report, Financial Times news report
Video
Monday, 21 November 2011
Is Global Warming Real?
Coming back to the video I posted 2 posts back about The Great Global Warming Swindle, I want to discuss about the extent of anthropogenic effects on this idea of global warming. Taken alone, global warming shouldn't be such a big deal. After all, global warming has happened in the past during the medieval warm period and even earlier during the Late Glacial Maximum (Tardiglacial) that occurred 13,000-10,000 years ago or even further back during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum that occurred 55.8mya. Assuming the cyclical nature of temperature changes between glacial and interglacial periods, the current climatic change is arguably the result of natural climatic fluctuations that have been occuring.
This image shows palaeotemperature graphs stitched together to form one graph from various sources that can be accessed here: Palaeotemperature graphs Sure, it is a wikipedia post, but I do think it is generally a good starting point to understand topics of interest. According to this stitchwork (accurate or not), we realise that temperature fluctuations have occurred between geological time periods, and within time periods. It is therefore justified that people believe that we are merely entering a warm phase in the holocene and there is nothing to worry about.
This is exactly the argument presented in the video. Global warming has always been occurring, and to make it into an anthropogenic problem is the result of political campaigning, ignorance and lack of solid scientific evidence. They propose that there are other more important effects for global warming such as volcanic activity that produces massive amounts of CO2, cloud cover and solar effects. They claim in the video that indeed there is a connection between CO2 and temperature, but Al Gore has got it the "wrong way round" (this video is clearly a response to Al Gore's inconvenient truth). Ian D. Clark, a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, argued that in fact warming increases carbon dioxide and that there is a time lag of 800 years between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, in the graph here screencaptured from the video.
Climate science is most certainly an uncertain science.
In 1975, Broecker S.W. wrote a commentary titled "Are we on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming" that addressed the trend of climatic cooling in the post war period. If you have no idea what I am talking about, here is another graph from the video to show temperature changes in recent times.
In this graph, we see that the documentary argues that we have had a cooling period between 1940 - 1975, when economic growth was the greatest, hence temperature changes should not be attributed to humans. Broecker argues, however, that this cooling period merely hides the huge increases in temperature that is to follow if we continue once the cooling effect "bottoms out". CO2 would then become the driving force behind temperature increases. Trying to include both natural and anthropogenic factors into temperature change, he produced the following data:
This is based on the assumption that "50% of all CO2 generated by burning chemical fuels has in the past and will in the future remain in the atmosphere" (Broecker 1975, 462), there is a growth rate of 4.5% per year of fuel consumption, and that a 10% increase in CO2 increases global temperature by 0.3dC. His main arguement is that the warming trend of CO2 has been countered by a cooling trend which was soon ending, we would then be faced with a CO2 induced warming trend that would bring warming beyond the range experienced during the last 1000 years, which according to the data by Crowley (2000), proves to be the case (although in his graph he did not attribute the rise to co2)
So we can see how the same point made by 2 different sets of scientists can be interpreted in different ways. While both acknowledge the natural variance of climate over time, those in the video believe the warming trend to be part of yet another natural variance. While Broecker does not deny this, he believes the larger than usual rise TO COME would be largely attributed to CO2 emissions.
Lean and Rind (2008) agrees with this point of view as well. But before we get to that, we shall review what he feels about natural causes for global warming. He believes that volcanic cooling, solar activity and el nino as possible natural causes for climate change. For example the "1997 ‘‘super’’ ElNino the globe warmed 0.23 ± 0.01 from June to November". Similarly, the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo produced gobal cooling from November 1991 to September 1992 of 0.25 ± 0.02 K. Solar activity, one of the perceived main causes of global warming in the video, is detected in the global historical surface temperature record, for example, producing a peak monthly increase of 0.17 ± 0.01 K from April 1996 (solar minimum) to February 2002 (solar maximum). According to Scafetta and West (2006), it contributes to 65% of surface warming in the past 100 years.
While Lean and Rind does believe that natural factors exist, and has provided data to support this view of the importance of natural factors, he often feels that such data has been exaggerated, which is not surprising since he belongs to the camp that believes that anthropogenic factors are to blame. He feels that solar induced warming contributed 10% to warming in the past 100 years, not 65% and that "Linear trends in temperature attributed to ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance over the past
118 years are, respectively, 0.002, 0.001 and 0.007 K per decade" and hence cannot explain the long term warming trend that we are seeing today. His use of the phrase "anthropogenic changes" however fails to describe what specific anthropogenic factor he refers to, only vaguely defining it as "anthropogenic gases". However, the key point of this research, and a key take away that any scientific enquiry should take is as follows:
Good advice indeed. I like how many of the journal articles I have read are able to present both sides of the picture when explaining global climate change. I mean, I appreciate Al Gore for spurring us into action and The Global Warming Swindle for providing an alternative view, but they are not the complete picture (ignoring the obvious people bashing tendencies). But then again, perhaps we will never have a complete picture of climate change, and opinions are what matters in such an issue.
Let the great Climate debate continue.
References:
Crowley, T.J.(2000) "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years", Science, 289, 270-277
Lean, J.L and Rind, D.H. (2008) "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional
surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophysical Research Letters, 35
Broecker, W.S. (1975) "Are we on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming?", Science, 189, 4201, 460-463
Wikipedia Temperature Record of the Past 1000 years
Geologic Timescale
This image shows palaeotemperature graphs stitched together to form one graph from various sources that can be accessed here: Palaeotemperature graphs Sure, it is a wikipedia post, but I do think it is generally a good starting point to understand topics of interest. According to this stitchwork (accurate or not), we realise that temperature fluctuations have occurred between geological time periods, and within time periods. It is therefore justified that people believe that we are merely entering a warm phase in the holocene and there is nothing to worry about.
This is exactly the argument presented in the video. Global warming has always been occurring, and to make it into an anthropogenic problem is the result of political campaigning, ignorance and lack of solid scientific evidence. They propose that there are other more important effects for global warming such as volcanic activity that produces massive amounts of CO2, cloud cover and solar effects. They claim in the video that indeed there is a connection between CO2 and temperature, but Al Gore has got it the "wrong way round" (this video is clearly a response to Al Gore's inconvenient truth). Ian D. Clark, a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, argued that in fact warming increases carbon dioxide and that there is a time lag of 800 years between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, in the graph here screencaptured from the video.
Climate science is most certainly an uncertain science.
In 1975, Broecker S.W. wrote a commentary titled "Are we on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming" that addressed the trend of climatic cooling in the post war period. If you have no idea what I am talking about, here is another graph from the video to show temperature changes in recent times.
So we can see how the same point made by 2 different sets of scientists can be interpreted in different ways. While both acknowledge the natural variance of climate over time, those in the video believe the warming trend to be part of yet another natural variance. While Broecker does not deny this, he believes the larger than usual rise TO COME would be largely attributed to CO2 emissions.
Lean and Rind (2008) agrees with this point of view as well. But before we get to that, we shall review what he feels about natural causes for global warming. He believes that volcanic cooling, solar activity and el nino as possible natural causes for climate change. For example the "1997 ‘‘super’’ ElNino the globe warmed 0.23 ± 0.01 from June to November". Similarly, the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo produced gobal cooling from November 1991 to September 1992 of 0.25 ± 0.02 K. Solar activity, one of the perceived main causes of global warming in the video, is detected in the global historical surface temperature record, for example, producing a peak monthly increase of 0.17 ± 0.01 K from April 1996 (solar minimum) to February 2002 (solar maximum). According to Scafetta and West (2006), it contributes to 65% of surface warming in the past 100 years.
While Lean and Rind does believe that natural factors exist, and has provided data to support this view of the importance of natural factors, he often feels that such data has been exaggerated, which is not surprising since he belongs to the camp that believes that anthropogenic factors are to blame. He feels that solar induced warming contributed 10% to warming in the past 100 years, not 65% and that "Linear trends in temperature attributed to ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance over the past
118 years are, respectively, 0.002, 0.001 and 0.007 K per decade" and hence cannot explain the long term warming trend that we are seeing today. His use of the phrase "anthropogenic changes" however fails to describe what specific anthropogenic factor he refers to, only vaguely defining it as "anthropogenic gases". However, the key point of this research, and a key take away that any scientific enquiry should take is as follows:
"To properly quantify their amplitudes, the natural and anthropogenic changes must be accounted for simultaneously when analyzing the surface temperature anomalies, since neglecting the influence of one can overestimate the influence of another."
Good advice indeed. I like how many of the journal articles I have read are able to present both sides of the picture when explaining global climate change. I mean, I appreciate Al Gore for spurring us into action and The Global Warming Swindle for providing an alternative view, but they are not the complete picture (ignoring the obvious people bashing tendencies). But then again, perhaps we will never have a complete picture of climate change, and opinions are what matters in such an issue.
Let the great Climate debate continue.
References:
Crowley, T.J.(2000) "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years", Science, 289, 270-277
Lean, J.L and Rind, D.H. (2008) "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional
surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophysical Research Letters, 35
Broecker, W.S. (1975) "Are we on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming?", Science, 189, 4201, 460-463
Wikipedia Temperature Record of the Past 1000 years
Geologic Timescale
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Is it our fault the Arctic is disappearing?
Hello!! I'm back from my fieldclass in Berlin and so I'll be doing more blog updates from now on. Remember the last time I said I'll be discussing the Arctic ice cover? Well, I shall do so now before moving on to another interesting film. While scientists and researchers do not have conclusive data on whether polar bear numbers are increasing or decreasing, from what I've read so far, it is clear that arctic ice size is indeed shrinking. Annual arctic ice extent has changed by -3% per decade from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, with much more pronounced losses in summer and early autumn (Stroeve et al. 2005, Bjørgo et al. 1997, Cavalieri et al. 1997, Kerr 1999). Recent estimates by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Special Sensor Microwave Imager (1987 to present) believe that ice extent has declined by –8.6 ± 2.9% per decade (Serreze et al. 2007). Here is a table that shows the changes in ice sheet in the late 1900s.
This supports the claim that ice sheets in the arctic have truly been decreasing, and so I believe that there should be no debate about that.
What then is the real debate about? The real question that have plagued scientists for a long time is what the definite cause of arctic ice decrease is. Is it natural like Surface Air Temperatures, normal long term climatic warming or human induced warming? When is the arctic ice completely going to disappear if it will at all?
Firstly to answer Al Gore's claim that in 50 - 70 years, the arctic ice will be completely gone, so that's probably in the year 2056 - 2076. In an article by Serreze, the IPCC AR4 models driven with the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B emissions scenario (CO2 emissions reaches 720 parts per million by 2100), complete loss of sea ice could occur in from 2040 well beyond 2100. That is a really long time frame. But most models suggest that there would still be a 15% ice cover average output for March and September from 2075 - 2084. Compiling data from 11 models, Serreze presents the projections for March and September in the diagrams below:
The data is still not absolutely conclusive, but from the above data, we agree with Al Gore that ice caps may completely disappear, but not in the time frame that he had dictated (though he did qualify that he got his data from "two major studies")
The next question we need to answer is whether this is a natural phenomenon or a human induced one.
Past ice sheet melting
It must be recognised that this is not the first time that the ice sheet is melting. It has happened before, and it is very spatially dependent. During the early holocene period, insolation was 10% higher than it was in 2004 driven by earth's orbital variations, which led to the deduction of snow and ice cover. This triggered a feedback loop in which a reduction in sea ice would lead to an amplification of warming at high latitudes because (and this we agree with Al Gore), a reduction of sea ice means a reduction in albedo and a higher heat capacity at the Arctic. Hence, more heat can be stored in the summer and re-radiated in winter, creating a positive feedback loop that warms temperatures there. However, the spatial distribution of the warming is not uniform, and some place in the Western Arctic warmed faster than the others. There is a really cool diagram to reflect this:
This diagram shows the holocene thermal maximum that can be studied to try and understand the variation in arctic response to insolation that is observed now, and to try and recognise anthropological and natural reasons for the diminishing arctic ice caps (Kaufman et al. 2004) No where in Al Gore's account of the arctic ice melting did he mention natural factors that lead to the decrease in arctic ice sheets, and he mostly assumes that it was a homogeneous phenomenon, whereas this study has shown us that it is far from that.
Natural factors for arctic ice depletion
There are a few factors that affect ice depletion that are difficult to understand for me. But I shall attempt to explain some of them here.
One of the factors is Arctic Oscillation which is an atmospheric fluctuation that alternately raises and lowers atmospheric pressure over the Arctic while lowering and raising it in a ring around the edge of the polar region. This phenomenon changes wind patterns that affect ice thickness. For example, in a positive phase in 1989, the AO pumped warm air into the arctic and warmed water entering the arctic from the North Atlantic, hence blowing more ice out of the arctic that thinned the ice (Kerr 1999). This in turn leads to a second factor, that of Surface Air Temperature (SAT). Data on SAT usually comes from Russian North Pole measurements collected from drifting buoys and they have calculated a significant increase in temperature from 1920 - 1940, before a cooling period, and then a rise again now. This could be indication that the rise in temperature is due to the AO that affected SAT that had caused warming in the area. Thinner ice caused by warmer SAT as a result of AO is of course much easier to melt, and promotes larger heat fluxes that lead to increased spring SATs, depressing the freezing point and creating earlier spring melts (Stroeve et al. 2004). So here we have a very logical explanation about how humans may not be entirely responsible for the ice melt that is occurring at the Arctic. And it would have been nice if Al Gore had explained that to his audience as well when he discussed Arctic ice melt. One of the authors of one of the articles I read (I can't remember which one really) even suggested that it would take a while before the natural and anthropological causes can be easily separated and identified, though I would suggest that by that time (if we realise conclusively that it is INDEED our fault), it would be too late to reverse the melting.
Anthropological reasons
By stating that there are natural reasons for the ice sheet melt, I do not suggest that humans are free from blame. Most research would suggest that indeed, humans do play a role in ice sheet melting, it just depends on the extent to which they believe so.
An article by Kaufman et al. (2009) suggests that there is in fact a reversal in long term arctic cooling trend that have occurred from 1 C.E. to 1900 C.E. He says that "Assuming that the overall cooling since the HTM was ultimately caused by a decrease in summer insolation, it seems that this insolation anomaly of +1.4% relative to present was amplified by climatic feedbacks". His temperature data is as shown below:
Stroeve (2005) suggests that indeed ice cover may be decreasing from natural factors, but that "external forces may favour a generally more positive AO state. Cooling of the stratosphere, in response to GHG loading or losses in stratospheric ozone can lead to "spin up" of the Polar vortex, favouring a positive shift of the AO" (page 4). This helps us understand the link that Al Gore made between GHG and polar ice melting. We should understand that alone, GHG should not be the sole explanation of melting, rather it speeds up already natural processes or exaggerates the effects to create such phenomenon.
In Conclusion, what we can understand from here is that we need to have a holistic view of the reasons for ice melt. There are historical events of ice melt in the past, and we should only start with our doomsday prophecies if it is certain that this is not just another natural phenomenon that is happening. of course, I am inclined to believe that is is mostly anthropogenic, and greenhouse gases are certainly messing up our natural atmospheric processes, but not everyone may agree with this, so it really depends on which data you would like to take more seriously.
If you want to find out more about the arctic, you can go to my coursemate's blog, which has really indepth research into icesheets in the Arctic. You can go to his blog here:
66 Degrees North
References:
Kaufman D.S. et al. (2004) "Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0-180degree W)", Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 529 - 600
Kaufman D.S. et al. (2009) "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling", Science, 325, 1236 - 1239
Stroeve, J.C. et al. (2005) "Tracking the Arctic’s shrinking ice cover: Another extreme September minimum in 2004", Geophysical Research Letters, 32
Serreze, M.C. et al. (2007) "Perspectives on the Arctic's Shrinking Sea-Ice Cover", Science, 315, 1533 - 1536
Kerr, R.A. (1999) "Will the Arctic Ocean Lose All its Ice?", Science, 286, 5446, 1828
Scientific Correspondence "The Arctic's Shrinking Sea Ice", Nature, 376, 126 - 127
Edit: ZOMG found this really funny cartoon... or not so funny. ok nvm.
What then is the real debate about? The real question that have plagued scientists for a long time is what the definite cause of arctic ice decrease is. Is it natural like Surface Air Temperatures, normal long term climatic warming or human induced warming? When is the arctic ice completely going to disappear if it will at all?
Firstly to answer Al Gore's claim that in 50 - 70 years, the arctic ice will be completely gone, so that's probably in the year 2056 - 2076. In an article by Serreze, the IPCC AR4 models driven with the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B emissions scenario (CO2 emissions reaches 720 parts per million by 2100), complete loss of sea ice could occur in from 2040 well beyond 2100. That is a really long time frame. But most models suggest that there would still be a 15% ice cover average output for March and September from 2075 - 2084. Compiling data from 11 models, Serreze presents the projections for March and September in the diagrams below:
The next question we need to answer is whether this is a natural phenomenon or a human induced one.
Past ice sheet melting
It must be recognised that this is not the first time that the ice sheet is melting. It has happened before, and it is very spatially dependent. During the early holocene period, insolation was 10% higher than it was in 2004 driven by earth's orbital variations, which led to the deduction of snow and ice cover. This triggered a feedback loop in which a reduction in sea ice would lead to an amplification of warming at high latitudes because (and this we agree with Al Gore), a reduction of sea ice means a reduction in albedo and a higher heat capacity at the Arctic. Hence, more heat can be stored in the summer and re-radiated in winter, creating a positive feedback loop that warms temperatures there. However, the spatial distribution of the warming is not uniform, and some place in the Western Arctic warmed faster than the others. There is a really cool diagram to reflect this:
Natural factors for arctic ice depletion
There are a few factors that affect ice depletion that are difficult to understand for me. But I shall attempt to explain some of them here.
One of the factors is Arctic Oscillation which is an atmospheric fluctuation that alternately raises and lowers atmospheric pressure over the Arctic while lowering and raising it in a ring around the edge of the polar region. This phenomenon changes wind patterns that affect ice thickness. For example, in a positive phase in 1989, the AO pumped warm air into the arctic and warmed water entering the arctic from the North Atlantic, hence blowing more ice out of the arctic that thinned the ice (Kerr 1999). This in turn leads to a second factor, that of Surface Air Temperature (SAT). Data on SAT usually comes from Russian North Pole measurements collected from drifting buoys and they have calculated a significant increase in temperature from 1920 - 1940, before a cooling period, and then a rise again now. This could be indication that the rise in temperature is due to the AO that affected SAT that had caused warming in the area. Thinner ice caused by warmer SAT as a result of AO is of course much easier to melt, and promotes larger heat fluxes that lead to increased spring SATs, depressing the freezing point and creating earlier spring melts (Stroeve et al. 2004). So here we have a very logical explanation about how humans may not be entirely responsible for the ice melt that is occurring at the Arctic. And it would have been nice if Al Gore had explained that to his audience as well when he discussed Arctic ice melt. One of the authors of one of the articles I read (I can't remember which one really) even suggested that it would take a while before the natural and anthropological causes can be easily separated and identified, though I would suggest that by that time (if we realise conclusively that it is INDEED our fault), it would be too late to reverse the melting.
Anthropological reasons
By stating that there are natural reasons for the ice sheet melt, I do not suggest that humans are free from blame. Most research would suggest that indeed, humans do play a role in ice sheet melting, it just depends on the extent to which they believe so.
An article by Kaufman et al. (2009) suggests that there is in fact a reversal in long term arctic cooling trend that have occurred from 1 C.E. to 1900 C.E. He says that "Assuming that the overall cooling since the HTM was ultimately caused by a decrease in summer insolation, it seems that this insolation anomaly of +1.4% relative to present was amplified by climatic feedbacks". His temperature data is as shown below:
Stroeve (2005) suggests that indeed ice cover may be decreasing from natural factors, but that "external forces may favour a generally more positive AO state. Cooling of the stratosphere, in response to GHG loading or losses in stratospheric ozone can lead to "spin up" of the Polar vortex, favouring a positive shift of the AO" (page 4). This helps us understand the link that Al Gore made between GHG and polar ice melting. We should understand that alone, GHG should not be the sole explanation of melting, rather it speeds up already natural processes or exaggerates the effects to create such phenomenon.
In Conclusion, what we can understand from here is that we need to have a holistic view of the reasons for ice melt. There are historical events of ice melt in the past, and we should only start with our doomsday prophecies if it is certain that this is not just another natural phenomenon that is happening. of course, I am inclined to believe that is is mostly anthropogenic, and greenhouse gases are certainly messing up our natural atmospheric processes, but not everyone may agree with this, so it really depends on which data you would like to take more seriously.
If you want to find out more about the arctic, you can go to my coursemate's blog, which has really indepth research into icesheets in the Arctic. You can go to his blog here:
66 Degrees North
References:
Kaufman D.S. et al. (2004) "Holocene thermal maximum in the western Arctic (0-180degree W)", Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 529 - 600
Kaufman D.S. et al. (2009) "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling", Science, 325, 1236 - 1239
Stroeve, J.C. et al. (2005) "Tracking the Arctic’s shrinking ice cover: Another extreme September minimum in 2004", Geophysical Research Letters, 32
Serreze, M.C. et al. (2007) "Perspectives on the Arctic's Shrinking Sea-Ice Cover", Science, 315, 1533 - 1536
Kerr, R.A. (1999) "Will the Arctic Ocean Lose All its Ice?", Science, 286, 5446, 1828
Scientific Correspondence "The Arctic's Shrinking Sea Ice", Nature, 376, 126 - 127
Edit: ZOMG found this really funny cartoon... or not so funny. ok nvm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)