American meteorologist George Taylor has done a review of the ‘Arctic Climate Impact Assessment’ for the Marshall Institute. Taylor has an interest in correlations and finding ‘matches’. This is what artic temperatures back to 1880 look like superimposed on a fish, specifically the black sea bass:
Read the full report at http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/309.pdf . The fish can be found on page 33 and in figure 38. There is some discussion of the famous hockey stick on page 32.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Seems to be a lot of stuff trying to explain away what is really happening.
Also Jennifer please note the reference to the ‘natural greenhouse effect” that Loius denies is happening. Perhaps you would like to consider that next time he posts. I mean even the skeptics usually acknowledge the natural greenhouse effect.
Ender,
please understand what a Greenhouse is – an enclosed volume of space in which energy cannot escape by virtue of the glass surround. It is a closed system hence why the greenhouse effect works.
The earth, on the other hand, is a totally open system – there is no barrier whatever stopping energy from escaping to space.
Hence it is totally wrong to describe it as a natural greenhouse effect. The natural greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, period, and then the analogy is a bad one.
It is simply open-system versus closed-system, the latter being a Greenhouse.
As Gaileo remarked some centuries back “The crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite” (Deming, JSE, Vol, 19, No 2, p.250)
“Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions.” ~ Alan Barth
Loius – Is that your answer is it? That there is nothing trapping heat leaving the Earth.
And yet you say “The natural greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour” – so what is it Loius – is there a greenhouse effect or not???????
If this is the answer then please explain the fact that the Earth is about 33 degrees warmer than if it did not have an atmosphere – something you have not done yet.
Louis
Need some more info.
What you’re saying if I get this right is that water vapour is a greenhouse gas and CO2 is not.
Is this right?
And so given the distance or the Earth from the Sun; why is our temperature not minus 18 degrees like the surface of the moon?
What physics is happening?
They say that the fish always rots from the head first.
Two problems with that report.
Current conditions don’t match the Artic Oscillation explanations.
It’s commisioned by just another US spin outfit like tech central station – pay for comment yada yada. Yes Exxon and Microsoft are sponsors. I mean you’ll be telling us Open Source computing is evil soon.
Is there no sophistication in the attempt to influence our opinion on this blog. Using US right wing spin sites is hardly commentary. Might as well watch Fox news.
Also the polarity of thermometers in the Artic region is well know issue. Check out the latest relativities in the position of the magnetic pole and you’ll see what I mean.
We’ve had a comment that could be interpreted as suggesting that the head has/could rot first – now what is going to happen to the tail with time?
after rotting …..Leaving a straight highly stable backbone crossed by up and down spikes, with a tail fan of any number of ensemble possibilities.
Some high tail fin scenarios , some lower, some decreasing. Something for everyone. All depends how big the tail is relative to the body … but if the fish had been in an Exxon Valdez oil slick it probably would have it’s tail eaten away away by confusion and spinning vortices – or at least the top half …. or maybe a naughty paid for fishing, fisherperson using a spin-cast reel was paid to rip it off just to make sure.
nuch nuch nuch and tee hee …
Dear Jen,
If in doubt, remember “better a right wing think-tank than a left wing non-think-tank”!
Regards
(And she always wants to remain anonymous – pity.)
Oh touche !
Although when the right wing get to thinkin’ it is usually only on one thought – keepin’ them SUV’s a running – meaning some central American or Middle East country gets a tad shot-up…. so we hope and pray they don’t think too darn hard …
Yep we all saw anomalous … and let it go…
Phillip Done –
You say “It’s commisioned by just another US spin outfit like tech central station – pay for comment yada yada. Yes Exxon and Microsoft are sponsors.”
I am sick of these allegations. Please PROVE that Exxon & Mobil are distorting climate studies. Show solid proof that distortion has taken place and that somehow this distortion has found its way through peer-reviews and has been published – and do so without repeating the opinions of others because in my book, a person who is unwilling to examine the raw data but relies only on the opinions of others is a religious acolyte, not an analyst.
While you are at it, please also PROVE that the millions of dollars being handed out for “climate impact” studies are not on the basis of distortion of facts by those applying for such grants. (Talk about snouts in the trough!)
You might be Done but I think your allegations are half-baked!
The credulous who believe that CO2 is a problem on earth have ignored Mars that has an atmosphere of 95.3% CO2, and but water vapour at 0.03% (and of a similar magnitude to CO2 on earth).
Mars atmosphere as a “weak” Greenhouse effect, presumably because of the lack of water.
So much CO2, so little greenhouse effect.
As I said consistently, Anthropogenic global warming is a pseudo-scientific scam which the credulous fools among have taken on board lock, stock and barrel.
No wonder second hand car salesman have such an easy job.
oooooo – temper
but you see dear John we are also SICK of your allegations …
John you can talk – your web site is full of cherry picked examples and hackneyed old arguments ? I mean you guys must swap the same cheat sheets.
Which freshly picked data would you like reviewed? a few points (like an El Nino peak here and a La Nina low there…) or the whole series …
And we have some peer reviewed Exxon studies?
Exxon Valdez.
The pay for comment stuff is drivel that has been well answered.
Louis has just denied that a greenhouse effect exists … well diddly doo… note no succinct answers for poor Ender just metaphysical incantations
And we have the usual list don’t we:
The world’s climate has changed before
Troposphere isn’t warming;
95% GHGs are water vapour so therefore??
Co2 follows the temperature in the paleo
temps are decreasing – cherry pick or running mean your way to heaven
urban heat island effects
can’t predict the weather so can’t predict the climate
can’t predict the past century’s climate
Antarctica and Greenland are cooling
no glacial retreat
Tyhoons/hurricanes not stronger
No independent confirm of hockey stick
all hinges on hockey stick
pro GW people are pro-Kyoto too
pro GW people are commie pinko lefties intent on destroying our way of life
pro GW people are anti new technology
any uncertainty proves they’re wrong
All models are wrong and useless
And the anti-AGWs you’ll note are ALWAYS right and have no uncertainty whatsoever…
zzzzzzzzzzzzz……………..
Done like a Dinner !
Phillip Done,
I think Mars has done you like a Dinner, I am afraid.
oooo – a big bite and went for the bait ….
and a feisty little fish too with a strange downwards pointing tail …..
a duh – and it might also be coz the density of Martian atmosphere is about 1% Earth’s !! and it’s a tad farther away too ….
“presumably” as Louis has probably been there !
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by ‘IPCC’ scientists. “Why isn’t water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?”, “Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?”, “Why isn’t water vapour included in climate models?”, “Why isn’t included on the forcings bar charts?” etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing.
First some basics. Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and aerosols) and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra (i.e. radiation at a particular frequency can either be absorbed by water vapour or CO2).
have a read Louis ….
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142#more-142
A Mars a day helps one work rest and play ….
Rack’em up guys ….
Phillip,
Water is not included in the climate models because no one has yet been able to model it. No point including it in the model when no one knows how to model clouds, for example.
And you have completely misunderstood the issue, whether Mar’s atmosphere is whatever fraction of the earth’s, the same physics apply.
Perhaps in your case one should add the adjective “Compleat” ……
yea mate whatever
Compleat amanuensis
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
de dum de dum de dum….
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………
QED
Of course water is not the dominant greenhouse gas – it is a liquid.
So it cannot be a greenhouse gas can it?
As Captain Mainwaring would have mutterered over one of Private Pike’s more inane comments, – “Stupid Boy”.
And that’s it is it?
Loius – first of all you deny that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. Now Mars has a weak greenhouse effect – how is this possible if there is no such thing? And you have not answered my question as Philip has pointed out.
Although Mars has an atmosphere that is almost all CO2 it lacks both water vapour and oceans. The small amount of CO2 does contribute in a small way to making the temperatures on Mars less extreme that say on the Moon that has no atmosphere. However as you correctly point out the lions share of the Greenhouse effect that you now seem to acknowledge is done by water vapour. CO2 makes a small but significant contribution as it is a very powerful greenhouse gas. You only need to look at the atmosphere of Venus to see this.
This is from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/GeorgeRyabov.shtml
“Water and water vapor are extremely rare on Venus due to its high surface temperature that can approach 758 K (900 °F). This extreme temperature is caused by the greenhouse affect. As sunlight heats Venus’ surface, the surface radiates infrared energy that is kept from escaping the planet by dense carbon dioxide atmosphere.”
So CO2 alone can do it if it is in sufficient amounts which completely contradicts all your arguments. First you tried to deny that there was such a thing as a Greenhouse effect then when backed into a corner tried to say that CO2 could not do it. Fortunately there are 2 examples in our solar system that disprove all that you say. Even Titan which has an atmosphere of CH4 has much higher temperatures than the other moons of Saturn that do not have atmospheres.
Water Vapour is not included in the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect because on Earth (at the triple point of water) water condenses as you point out. The water vapour balance of the atmosphere is relativly stable because humans cannot prevent water condensing. CO2 on the other hand is scrubbed out by the oceans and living systems. Humans can interfere with this by removing plants and burning them. Also at the same time we are releasing previously stored carbon in large quantities disturbing the carbon balance. This extra CO2 has no way of escaping so it builds up. As proved by science from the 19th century this extra CO2 will cause extra heating.
So where are your arguments now Loius? Will you just hope your bits of crap will just disappear to be re-cycled when it next comes up or will you actually answer my questions?
John
While there is no actual proof, there is enough circumstancial evidence that ExxonMobil is driving the anti AGW campaign
These are some of the links:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g
“n the email, Myron Ebell of the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute writes to Phil Cooney, a senior official at the White House Council for Environmental Quality. He describes his plans to discredit an EPA study on climate change through a lawsuit. He states the need to “drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think that they are serving the president’s interests by publishing this rubbish.””
” President’s George Bush’s decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world’s most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month’s G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060805Y.shtml
In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvement” in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.”
List of Lobby groups Exxon funds
http://exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
List of activities that Exxon funds
http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/esso_caseagainst.pdf
While I agree this is not proof it certainly would make most people deeply suspicious of ExxonMobil’s motivation in funding all these anti AGW groups. Your shrill demands for proof of course can not be met as only this circumstancial evidence exists as you well know. You are using the same defense as notorious criminals who cannot be prosecuted for lack of eveidence posturing in the media “So prove it”. This is not a game John – if you are wrong then potentially billions of people could have their lives affected by climate change.
Are you truly so arrogant to be 100% sure that you are right. I am not. AGW could well turn out to be false in the future and the effects could be minor however, are you really prepared to bet our society on the nose?
I simply believe that there is enough evidence now that AGW will cause some degree of climate change in the future. I do not 100% know that I am right and neither does any scientist in the world. That is not the point. The best evidence available suggests that there is a non zero risk that climate change could happen. That should be sufficient to take action to limit human activities that are contributing to it such as land clearing and buring fossil fuels. If we act now we can limit the AGW to a level that may not cause large climate change. If we do not take action the AGW could rise to a level that will make climate change both swift and violent something that our fragile technological society is extremely vunerable to.
Of course the interesting aspect of anti-AGW sites is the intensity of attack – lots of rhetoric and often a semi-political nature.
There is generally a much more shrill approach compared to the science sites. In fact unless you’re into it – the science sites in general are boring. No great intrigue – just numbers and written up projects.
And after the performance of major corporations in the last 50 years with tobacco, silicon implants, oil spills (anyone we know?), asbestos (anyone we know again, Bhopal etc – well I reckon the general public has to be wary of spin … we’ve all seen so much. And yes in the finality – greenies are not immune from this either… but usually with their voices and Greenpeace style stunts – not millions of coporate dollars.
And for all the greenies bleating – very very little has been done. So Louis and John McLean have been most successful. Australia’s energy growth continues unabated – our Kyoto face (much that it really matters) saved by annexing the trees of Qld farmers (and this bizarrely done by their State Govt with no contribution by the Feds). Globally emissions are growing untouched – so greenies have lost in the first round – we’ve all ignored them ….
The issue with climate change as Ender suggests is one of perceived risk – does “the body” of evidence give one “enough” cause for some concern. And might this “concern” translate itself into endorsement for more research on climate change and prudence with with the continued unabated emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Australia has the only major climate research effort in the Southern Hemisphere. I for one am not concerned if we spend a “Melbourne Cup Day” of funds occasionally on such an issue….
And of course one of the ways climate models are tested is to do weather forecasting with them – so it can’t be too wasted….. (in the event that the anti-dudes are right after all – which they’re not (hey) !!!!! ).
P.S. Why do geologists love to buy into this debate. Obviously meteorologists have offended geologists big time somewhere … was it a pub argument ??…. but the assertion “well the climate has changed in geological time and we’re all still here” breaks down with the simple observation that it hasn’t changed with six billion global citizens before. The modern world has not experienced a major change in climate (yet!).
Thanks Ender. Your comments are rather better than Phillip’s non-sequitur about Exxon Valdez. I might look at your references if I have time.
Funding of lobby groups (both industry-wide and individual) might be an attempt to get favourable political decisions but is NOT proof of influencing Science.
Ender, I appreciate your response but it was Phillip D who made the claim so I look forward to his concrete proof to support his allegations. As I said, parroting the assertions of others is not acceptable – that is largely why the debate about AGW continues; too many parrots and not enough looking at raw data.
Information that I received yesterday from a credible source says…
1. It has been claimed that the cause of Bush’s withdrawal from Kyoto was supposedly the $1.2m donated to his campaign by Exxon in 2000 but $1.2m doesn’t buy a whole lot of infliuence in US politics.
2. Industry has influence overwhelmingly because of its structural power, not because of campaign contributions — which do buy access, but rarely can any corporation ‘buy’ a significant outcome for a mere $1.2m. Someone has been watching too many Hollywood movies. Rather, they should read some basic political science, starting perhaps with Charles Linblom’s book Politics and Markets.
3. It makes more sense for E-M to be in favour of a reduction in the use of oil and coal. Exxon-Mobil are owners of vast gas reserves so if oil and coal are regarded as “dirty” E-M are sitting in the box-seat for making huge progits from gas.
4. Exxon-Mobil are funding climate research at Stamford university to the tune of about $250 million over 10 years. This would seem to put Stephem Schneider, long time “chicken-little” imitator regards GW under the funding of E-M!
5. That $250 million is vastly more than the $1.2 million contributed to George Bush’s re-election.
cheers
Exxon Valdez – and example of Exxon’s recent creds. You’d have to be looking pretty closely.
Was that a movie ?
BP and Shell have much better responses to the issue of GW.
What’s the $250M spent on ? spin ? sophistry ?
And what % of their annual revenues would $25M be. And would they get a tax break from the contribution ….. come on ….
Do we have a raft of peer reviewed science from this investment. Or is it like ciggy companies investing in ciggy research. We’ve all seen that up close. Was that a movie ? see also asbestosis, silicon implants etc etc
All I can find from the ENTIRE tone of their sponsored contributions is SPIN.
Pls point to the URL laying out their proposed programme and results to date.
Do we have a congent peer reviewed scientific paper on an alternative physical mechanism for the apparent warming we have (instead of the old “well it’s changed before Jethro boy – so it will dang change again …” )
John – I am not parroting other sources I am quoting references to research and studies that other people far more qualified than myself have done. This is not parroting. In quoting the information from a ‘credible source’ I can accuse you of exactly the same thing. I have posted open references to studies with the authors and sources named. Your credible source might be Loius for all I know.
I do not think that the 250million is exlusvely spent in the climate research lab. Stanford University is a giant place. To say that all the money Exxon donates goes to climate research is ridiculous.
Also you have not commented on the notion that you might be wrong and the consequences of this. Again I have never heard an AGW skeptic admit that they might be wrong. I have never heard an AGW sleptic analyse the consequences of being wrong. This is s major blind spot that your side has not addressed.
Another one of those funny one-off’s
Warming hits ‘tipping point’
Siberia feels the heat It’s a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian
A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres – the size of France and Germany combined – has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world’s largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying “tipping points” – delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth’s temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.
The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.
The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.
Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an “ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming”. He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.
Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.
“When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it’s unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply,” said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
“This is a big deal because you can’t put the permafrost back once it’s gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing.”
In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.
“These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren’t known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming,” said Dr Viner.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.
Siberia’s peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.
The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter.
But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world’s wetlands and agriculture.
It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. “We knew at some point we’d get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.
“If we don’t take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide,” he said. “There’s still time to take action, but not much.
“The assumption has been that we wouldn’t see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we’re running out of time.”
In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.
Last month, some of the world’s worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.
The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Peat bogs were once living matter. Living things require water (temperature above 0 deg C). To me that means the peat bogs were above 0 deg C at some stage recently (typically up to 5 deg C ).
A quick scan of the literature or internet on peat will show that the peat bogs are very old and have been frozen for a long time.
Coal was once living matter too but hasn’t required water in millions of years !
Coal is buried under a rock or sediment overburden and is heated by heat flow from the earths core, the peat referred to is on the surface and is therefore recent. Biomass allowed to remain in contact with air would rot to C02 from whence it came. Bog decay is such to prevent oxygen to allow decay of the biomass but it remains on the surface.
There are two types of peat and it is not clear which one is referred to. Beyond 1000 years it turns to brown coal. The peat is recent, less than 1000 yearsold, therefore the claim that the tundra was permafrost for 11000 years is suspect to me.
Well if you want to argue with C14 carbon dating !
Was to be my next question.I have not come across core drill data for permafrost deposits.
I have difficulty with any surface deposits surviving glaciation. All the areas I am familiar with were polished to bear rock and subsequently covered by soil and peat. These areas are now farm land and harvested for turf for home heat.
How about
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=4865
AND
Science, Vol 303, Issue 5656, 353-356 , 16 January 2004
Siberian Peatlands a Net Carbon Sink and Global Methane Source Since the Early Holocene
L. C. Smith,1,2* G. M. MacDonald,1,3* A. A. Velichko,4 D. W. Beilman,1 O. K. Borisova,4 K. E. Frey,1 K. V. Kremenetski,1,4 Y. Sheng1
Interpolar methane gradient (IPG) data from ice cores suggest the “switching on” of a major Northern Hemisphere methane source in the early Holocene. Extensive data from Russia’s West Siberian Lowland show (i) explosive, widespread peatland establishment between 11.5 and 9 thousand years ago, predating comparable development in North America and synchronous with increased atmospheric methane concentrations and IPGs, (ii) larger carbon stocks than previously thought (70.2 Petagrams, up to 26% of all terrestrial carbon accumulated since the Last Glacial Maximum), and (iii) little evidence for catastrophic oxidation, suggesting the region represents a long-term carbon dioxide sink and global methane source since the early Holocene.
During summer field campaigns in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (14), we collected 87 peat cores from Russia’s West Siberian Lowland (WSL), the world’s largest peatland complex (6) (Fig. 1). These campaigns were directed at previously unstudied peatlands of the WSL, particularly in permafrost (15). Radiocarbon dating of peat material at the base of each core establishes the age of peatland initiation (table S1). These radiocarbon dates, together with a compilation of 139 additional dates gleaned from a variety of published and unpublished sources (16), provide a comprehensive database of peatland initiation for the entire WSL (Fig. 2). Figures 1 and 2 show that WSL peatlands expanded broadly and rapidly in the early Holocene (11.5 to 9 ka), a period previously thought to be unfavorable for northern peatland development (1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18). The rapidity of this expansion directly contradicts a “steady-state” peatland growth model previously theorized for the region (18), and the timing of maximum expansion is coincident with peak values of atmospheric methane concentration as recorded in Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) and Taylor Dome ice cores (Fig. 2).
1 Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1524, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1524, USA.
3 Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1524, USA.
4 Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 109017, Russia.
Which is what I said. It was warm enough to grow peat in the ares mentioned at those times. The are is now permafrost.
Hey I Have A Question To Do For Home Work Can You Please Help Me, The Question Is:How Does Burning Coal And Oil Contribute To The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect?
Thank you.
P.s. Can I Have The Answer As Soon As Posible Thank You Once Again.
Deano