SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | The Exxon Free Environmental Thread


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Ron2/27/2012 3:35:43 PM
   of 22730
 
Climate change hoax makes little sense:
grist.org

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Eric2/27/2012 6:05:39 PM
   of 22730
 
Nuclear Crisis Set Off Fears Over Tokyo, Report Says


Issei Kato/Reuters, via, via Bloomberg
Members of the news media took a tour of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant last week. A new report has found that Japanese leaders considered evacuating Tokyo, 150 miles to the south, as the crisis unfolded at the plant in March 2011.


By MARTIN FACKLER Published: February 27, 2012

TOKYO — In the darkest moments of last year’s nuclear accident, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo, even as they tried to play down the risks in public, an independent investigation into the accident disclosed on Monday.

The investigation by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, a new private policy organization, offered one of the most vivid accounts yet of how Japan teetered on the edge of an even larger nuclear crisis than the one that engulfed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. A team of 30 university professors, lawyers and journalists spent more than six months on the inquiry into Japan’s response to the triple meltdown at the plant, which followed a massive earthquake and tsunami last March 11 that shut down the plant’s cooling systems. The team conducted interviews with more than 300 people including top nuclear regulators and government officials, as well as the prime minister during the crisis, Naoto Kan. They were granted extraordinary access, in part because of a strong public demand for greater accountability and because the organization’s founder, Yoichi Funabashi, a former editor in chief of the daily Asahi Shimbun, is one of Japan’s most respected public intellectuals.

An advanced copy of the report describes how Japan’s response was hindered at times by a debilitating breakdown in trust between the major actors: Mr. Kan; the Tokyo headquarters of the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, known as Tepco; and the manager at the stricken plant. The conflicts produced confused flows of sometimes contradictory information in the early days of the crisis, the report said.

It described frantic phone calls by the manager, Masao Yoshida, to top officials in the Kan government arguing that he could get the plant under control if he could keep his staff in place, while at the same time ignoring orders from Tepco’s headquarters not to use sea water to cool the overheating reactors. By contrast, Mr. Funabashi said in an interview, Tepco’s president, Masataka Shimizu, was making competing calls to the prime minister’s office saying the company should evacuate all of its staff, a step that could have been catastrophic.

The 400-page report, due to be released later this week, also described a darkening mood at the prime minister’s residence as a series of hydrogen explosions rocked the plant on March 14 and 15. It said Mr. Kan and other officials began discussing a worst-case outcome of an evacuation of workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. This would allow the plant to spiral out of control, releasing even larger amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere that would in turn force the evacuation of other nearby nuclear plants, causing further meltdowns.

The report quoted the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that this “demonic chain reaction” of plant meltdowns could have resulted in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.

“We would lose Fukushima Daini, then we would lose Tokai,” Mr. Edano was quoted as saying, naming two other nuclear plants. “If that happened, it was only logical to conclude that we would also lose Tokyo itself.”

The report also described the panic within the Kan administration at the prospect of large radiation releases from the more than 10,000 spent fuel rods that were stored in relatively unprotected pools near the damaged reactors. The report said it was not until five days after the earthquake that a Japanese military helicopter was finally able to confirm that the pool deemed at highest risk, near the No. 4 reactor, was still safely filled with water.

“We barely avoided the worst case scenario, though the public didn’t know it at the time,” Mr. Funabashi, the foundation founder, said.
Mr. Funabashi blamed the Kan administration’s fear of creating a panic for its decision to understate the true dangers of the accident. He said the Japanese government hid its most alarming assessments not just from its own public but also from allies like the United States. Mr. Funabashi said the investigation revealed “how precarious the U.S.-Japan relationship was” in the early days of the crisis, until the two nations began daily informational meetings at the prime minister’s residence on March 22.
The report seemed to confirm the suspicions of nuclear experts in the United States — inside and outside the government — that the Japanese government was not being forthcoming about the full dangers posed by the stricken Fukushima plant. But it also showed that the United States government occasionally overreacted and inflated the risks, like when American officials mistakenly warned that the spent fuel rods in the pool near unit No. 4 were exposed to the air and vulnerable to melting down and releasing massive amounts of radiation.

Still, Mr. Funabashi said it was the Japanese government’s failure to warn its people of the dangers and the widespread distrust it bred in the government that spurred him to assemble the independent investigation. Such outside investigations have been rare in Japan, where the public in the past has tended to accept official versions of events.

He said his group’s findings conflicted with those of the government’s own investigation into the accident, which were released in an interim report in December. A big difference involved one of the most crucial moments of the nuclear crisis, when the prime minister, Mr. Kan, marched into Tepco’s headquarters early on the morning of March 15 upon hearing that the company wanted to withdraw its employees from the wrecked nuclear plant.

The government’s investigation sided with Tepco by saying that Mr. Kan, a former social activist who often clashed with Japan’s establishment, had simply misunderstood the company, which wanted to withdraw only a portion of its staff. Mr. Funabashi said his foundation’s investigators had interviewed most of the people involved — except executives at Tepco, which refused to cooperate — and found that the company had in fact said it wanted a total pull out.

He credited Mr. Kan with making the right decision in forcing Tepco not to abandon the plant.

“Prime Minister Kan had his minuses and he had his lapses,” Mr. Funabashi said, “but his decision to storm into Tepco and demand that it not give up saved Japan.”
The report seemed to confirm the suspicions of nuclear experts in the United States — inside and outside the government — that the Japanese government was not being forthcoming about the full dangers posed by the stricken Fukushima plant. But it also showed that the United States government occasionally overreacted and inflated the risks, like when American officials mistakenly warned that the spent fuel rods in the pool near unit No. 4 were exposed to the air and vulnerable to melting down and releasing massive amounts of radiation.

Still, Mr. Funabashi said it was the Japanese government’s failure to warn its people of the dangers and the widespread distrust it bred in the government that spurred him to assemble the independent investigation. Such outside investigations have been rare in Japan, where the public in the past has tended to accept official versions of events.

He said his group’s findings conflicted with those of the government’s own investigation into the accident, which were released in an interim report in December. A big difference involved one of the most crucial moments of the nuclear crisis, when the prime minister, Mr. Kan, marched into Tepco’s headquarters early on the morning of March 15 upon hearing that the company wanted to withdraw its employees from the wrecked nuclear plant.

The government’s investigation sided with Tepco by saying that Mr. Kan, a former social activist who often clashed with Japan’s establishment, had simply misunderstood the company, which wanted to withdraw only a portion of its staff. Mr. Funabashi said his foundation’s investigators had interviewed most of the people involved — except executives at Tepco, which refused to cooperate — and found that the company had in fact said it wanted a total pull out.

He credited Mr. Kan with making the right decision in forcing Tepco not to abandon the plant.

“Prime Minister Kan had his minuses and he had his lapses,” Mr. Funabashi said, “but his decision to storm into Tepco and demand that it not give up saved Japan.”

nytimes.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Wharf Rat2/27/2012 7:42:10 PM
   of 22730
 
Bad Acid Trip: USGS Study Finds Humans Are Acidifying ‘The Air, Oceans, Freshwaters And Soils’
By Joe Romm on Feb 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm


Call it the reverse Midas touch. Everything homo sapiens touches turns to acid.

A study led by the U.S. Geological Survey finds, “Human use of Earth’s natural resources is making the air, oceans, freshwaters, and soils more acidic.” The USGS news release explains:

This comprehensive review, the first on this topic to date, found the mining and burning of coal, the mining and smelting of metal ores, and the use of nitrogen fertilizer are the major causes of chemical oxidation processes that generate acid in the Earth-surface environment.

These widespread activities have increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, increasing the acidity of oceans; produced acid rain that has increased the acidity of freshwater bodies and soils; produced drainage from mines that has increased the acidity of freshwater streams and groundwater; and added nitrogen to crop lands that has increased the acidity of soils.

Previous studies have linked increased acidity in oceans to damage to ocean food webs, while increased acidity in soils has the potential to affect their ability to sustain crop growth.

In short, global acidification is one more threat to global food security, which is already under grave threat by climate change, our idiotic biofuels policies, population growth and demographic changes (see Oxfam Predicts Climate Change will Help Double Food Prices by 2030: “We Are Turning Abundance into Scarcity”).

Here’s more background on the study and its findings:



“We believe that this study is the first attempt to assess all of the major human activities that are making Earth more acidic,” said USGS scientist Karen Rice, who led the study. “We hope others will use this as a starting point for making scientific and management progress to preserve the atmosphere, waters, and soils that support human life.”

… “The low pH levels of streams in coal regions of the eastern United States were a major environmental concern 50 years ago,” said University of Virginia geochemist Janet Herman. “Changes in mining practices as well as shifting location of production brought about improvements in water quality in Appalachia. In contrast, exploitation of coal has grown in China where the same environmental protections are not in place.”

To examine the global impact of acidification, the researchers developed a series of world maps to show current coal use, nutrient consumption, and copper production and smelting by country. By combining this information with the anticipated population growth through 2050 and the impact of changing technology, regulations and other factors, the researchers address shifting trends in acidification.

“Looking at these maps can help identify where the current hotspots are for producing acidity,” said Rice. “The population increase map can help guide policymakers on possible future trends and areas to watch for the development of new hotspots.”

For example, the populations of some countries in Africa are projected to increase in the near future. To support the growing populations, these countries likely will be forced to apply more nitrogen fertilizer to their crops than they currently use, increasing the acidification of soils and freshwater resources in a region that had not previously been affected.

To look at the impact of the acid producing activities, the researchers characterized the scale of environmental damage from major activities and their components as local, regional, global, or some combination of the three. Generating power by burning coal, for instance, can have local, regional and global impacts. Locally, it can cause acid mine drainage where the coal is mined; regionally, burning it can cause acid rain; globally, the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the acidity of the ocean.

The full study in the journal Applied Geochemistry, “Acidification of Earth: An Assessment across Mechanisms and Scales,” is available online. It concludes:

… currently low-consuming regions in Africaand the Middle East are predicted to experience a tremendous population growth with its attendant demand for energy, mineral, andfood resources. It may be that regions of Earth not currently burdened with environmental acidi?cation soon will be contributing signi?cantly to Earth’s acid load. Now might be the time of opportunity to anticipate the coming shifts in population and resource consumption and plan for amelioration of acidifying processes from the outset.

That would be the understatement of the year.

The fact is ocean acidification by itself ought to be reason enough to act now (see Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century”). But the disinformers, delayers, inactivists, and smoke-detector-battery-removers currently have the upper hand.

So we will get to see what happens when you acidify everything. What a long, strange trip it’s going to be
thinkprogress.org

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9509)2/27/2012 7:43:56 PM
From: Wharf Rat
1 Recommendation   of 22730
 
James Inhofe Takes the Climate Conspiracy Theory to New Heights, Even as Global Warming Bakes His Home State

By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm


by Chris Mooney, reposted from DeSmogBlog

James Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, has a new book out. It is entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

I have not read it yet. So I cannot say much about its contents, but I can say this: The title suggests that Inhofe, like Rick Santorum, is endorsing the global warming conspiracy theory. Indeed, where Santorum only muttered the word “hoax” without a great deal of elaboration, it looks like Inhofe is going to put some real meat onto those paranoid bones.

Let me once again reiterate why the global warming conspiracy theory is, well, just plain ridiculous.

To believe that global warming is a “hoax,” or that there is a “conspiracy,” you must believe in coordinated action on the part of scientists, environmental ministers, politicians, and NGOs around the world. It won’t do just to situate the hoax in the United States and its own scientific and NGO community, because the idea of human-caused global warming is endorsed by scientists, and scientific academies, around the globe.

Any one of these could blow the whistle on the so-called “hoax.” That this has not happened either means there is no hoax, or that the degree of conspiracy and collusion—among people who are notoriously individualistic and non-conformist, by the way—is mindboggling. We’re talking about some serious cat-herding going on.



Oh, and by the way: You also have to believe that the colluding hoaxers have nefarious objectives—basically, they want to kill capitalism and strangle economies. This is even less plausible.

In other words, there is no hoax, and to believe in one is to be a conspiracy theorist. Inhofe himself uses the word “conspiracy” in his subtitle, so I do not think it at all unfair to describe him in this way. Either he is actually right in his claims—not likely—or else he’s conjuring a conspiracy where none exists. It’s that simple.

I point this out, incidentally, because I am continually amazed that our national discourse basically shrugsat conspiracy theories. That’s saddening evidence that we live in an “anything goes” political culture that has become unmoored from reality.

And how did this happen? Here’s a hint: Inhofe will debut his book on Fox’s Sean Hannity program tonight.

Let me end this post with a dose of reality. Inhofe, the climate conspiracy theorist, not only hails from but representsthe state of Oklahoma. Here is what has been happening, climatologically, to Oklahoma lately, according to NOAA and other sources:

* The summer of 2011 was the hottest summer on record for the state. According to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, “Oklahoma experienced the hottest summer of any state since records began in 1895 with a statewide average of 86.9 degrees.”

* July 2011 was the worst. Says the Oklahoma Climatological Survey: “July’s average temperature was 89.3 degrees, becoming the hottest month for any state on record, besting over 67,000 other months.”

* August also fried Oklahoma, and was the hottest August on record.

* This, of course, caused serious damage and monetary losses: “Agricultural damage alone from the drought and related heat has been estimated as high as $2 billion.”

From the perspective of Inhofe’s constituents—say, an Oklahoma farmer—the global warming conspiracy sounds like an intellectual dalliance that the state simply cannot afford.

– Chris Mooney is Washington correspondent for Seed magazine, senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and author of the bestselling book The Republican War on Science. This piece was originally published at DeSmogBlo g. The top graphic is from Grist.

Related Posts:






thinkprogress.org

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Wharf Rat2/27/2012 7:59:11 PM
   of 22730
 
To: Wharf Rat who wrote (35166) 2/27/2012 2:57:40 PM
From: Land Shark of 35169
And this is only the beginning, the "fun" hasn't even started yet. Permian era took 90,000 years to kill 90% of all life on the planet. I think this time it'll take a bit over a century.

U.S. weather extremes in 2011 and their impacts: some numbers
Posted on February 26, 2012 by Climate Science Watch



40 U.S. cities experienced their hottest summer on record in 2011.

A record-high 99 Federal major disaster declarations in 2011....

Weather Extremes

40: Number of U.S. cities that experienced their hottest summer on record in 2011.
Source: http://extremeweatherguide.com/updates.asp

40: Number of U.S. cites that recorded their hottest single month on record in 2011.
Source: http://extremeweatherguide.com/updates.asp

12: Number of U.S. cities that recorded their all-time hottest temperature on record in 2011. Source: http://extremeweatherguide.com/updates.asp

58: The record high percentage of the U.S. experiencing either extremely-wet or extremely-dry conditions during 2011.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/3c/01-12

1,049: The record number of cooling degree days in the U.S. during the summer of 2011. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/redti/USA/aug/3-month

#1: Summer 2011 was the hottest on record for the Mississippi-Louisiana-Texas-Arkansas-Oklahoma-Kansas 6-state area combined.
63: The record percentage of the 6-state area experiencing weather extremes during the summer of 2011
53: The record percentage of the Southeast, experiencing weather extremes in the summer of 2011.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/so/06-08/cei

#1: 2011 was the driest year on record for Texas.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=pcp&month=12&year=2011&filter=ytd&state=41&div=0

Impacts

99: The record number of Federal major disaster declarations in 2011.
Source: http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/ppt/Federal%20Disaster%20Declarations.ppt

$72.8 billion: Total estimated catastrophe losses in the United States in 2011, most of which resulted from extreme weather events.
$46 billion: Estimate damages from severe thunderstorms in 2011. Insured losses exceeded $25 billion, more than twice the previous record.
$10 billion: Estimated economic losses from Hurricane Irene in 2011.
$2 billion: Estimated economic losses from lower Mississippi floods of 2011.
$8 billion: Estimated costs of Texas drought in 2011.
Source: 2011 Natural Catasrophe Year in Review, 4 January 2012, Munich Re, http://www.ctnow.com/media/acrobat/2012-01/67158951.pdf

6,170,593: Acres burned by wildfires in the southern tier of states (excluding southern California) in 2011 (10 year average: 2,160,542 acres).
Source: http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/Annual_Report_2011.pdf

$5.2 billion: Estimated agricultural losses of the Texas drought in 2011. Additional indirect losses to the agricultural sector could add another $3.5 billion.
3.8 million: The number of acres burned in Texas from Nov. 15, 2010 through Sept. 29, 2011. 2,763 homes were destroyed by the fires.
Source: The Impact of the 2011 Drought and Beyond, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, February 6 2012.

100-500 million: Estimated number of trees with diameters of 5 inches or larger killed in Texas as a result of the ongoing drought in 2011.
Source: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/main/popup.aspx?id=14954

$2 billion: Estimated costs for Corps of Engineers to repair damage to levees, dams and riverbanks from 2011 floods -- excluding the damage from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee.
Source: Corps Pegs 2011 Flood Damage to Levees at $2B, Insurance Journal, 19 Sep 2011. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/09/19/216381.htm

h/t Nick Sundt

Earlier posts:

IPCC says essential actions needed to reduce risks of changing climate extremes

"As the Costs of Extreme Weather Rise, Americans Cannot Afford Denial"

Talking about the Texas disasters -- climate and political

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Ron who wrote (9506)2/27/2012 9:44:12 PM
From: koan
   of 22730
 
Ron, I really think this fracking is a terrible idea. Especially in highly populated areas that depend on ground water for drinking.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: koan who wrote (9512)2/27/2012 10:47:13 PM
From: Ron
   of 22730
 
fracking is a terrible idea-- I agree.
Big sections of North Carolina are likely targets of shale fracking too, and lots of people around here
get their household water from deep wells. A very bad idea indeed.
The Republicans took over the legislature for the first time in many years here, and guess what, they are
very friendly to the oil and gas companies. So unless we get some balance back in our state government
we are likely in for it. The environment and individual citizens rights be damned-- the fossil fuel industry
needs to grow its profits-- and it's campaign contributions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Ron who wrote (9513)2/27/2012 11:35:36 PM
From: koan
   of 22730
 
What I read is that not only are all sorts of toxic chemicals being ditributed a mile underground into other fractures and ground water that god only knows where it goes, but is also distributing natural radiation to the surface.

So we have coal powered power plants polluting all the oceans of the world with mercury and now radiation being distributed through ground water.

Those right winger's never give it a thought.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Sam2/28/2012 8:42:57 AM
   of 22730
 
Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
27 February 2012 Last updated at 15:05 ET

bbc.co.uk

The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.

As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.

Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further is unclear.

There was a marked deterioration in ice cover between the summers of 2006 and 2007, which still holds the record for the lowest extent on record; and it has not recovered since.

The current winter is roughly tracking the graph of 2007, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

The new study is not the first to propose a causal relationship between low Arctic ice in autumn and Europe's winter weather.

But it has gone further than others in assessing the strength of the link.

Through observations and computer modelling, the team headed by Jiping Liu from Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, US, and the Insitute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing has also elucidated the mechanisms involved.

"For the past four winters, for much of the northern US, east Asia and Europe, we had this persistent above-normal snow cover," Dr Liu told BBC News.

"We don't see a predictive relationship with any of the other factors that have been proposed, such as El Nino; but for sea ice, we do see a predictive relationship."

How it happens If less of the ocean is ice-covered in autumn, it releases more heat, warming the atmosphere.

This reduces the air temperature difference between the Arctic and latitudes further south, over the Atlantic Ocean.



The dwindling Arctic summer ice may have severe consequences for wildlife


In turn, this reduces the strength of the northern jet stream, which usually brings milder, wetter weather to Europe from the west.

It is these "blocking" conditions that keep the UK and the other affected regions supplied with cold air.

The researchers also found that the extra evaporation from the Arctic Ocean makes the air more humid, with some of the additional water content falling out as snow.

"I agree with the study - I have no beef with the case that declining Arctic sea ice can drive easterly winds and produce colder winters over Europe," commented Adam Scaife, head of monthly to decadal prediction at the UK Met Office.

Research in other institutions, including the Met Office, confirmed the argument, he said.

Dr Scaife was involved with another study published last year that showed how small, natural changes in the Sun's output can also affect winter weather.

And he emphasised that the declining Arctic ice cover was just one of several factors that could increase blocking.

"You can hit a bell with anything, and you still produce the same note," he told BBC News.

"This is no bigger than the solar effect or the El Nino effect. But they vary, whereas Arctic ice is on a pretty consistent downward trend."



Arctic sea ice is on a downward curve, according to data from NSIDC

The picture is further complicated by the involvement of the Arctic Oscillation, a natural variation of air pressure that also changes northern weather.




Dr Len Shaffrey, University of Reading: "This is very early days for this research"


The oscillation is not understood well enough to predict - and even if it were, any pattern it has may be changing due to escalating greenhouse gas concentrations.

Nevertheless, the research suggests that on average, winters in the UK and the rest of the affected region will be colder in years to come than they have been in recent decades.

Various computer simulations have generated a range of dates by which the Arctic might be completely ice-free in summer and autumn, ranging from 2016 to about 2060.

A few years ago, one projection even showed 2013 was possible, though this now appears unlikely.

So a related question is whether UK winters will get colder and snowier still as the melting progresses,

"It's possible that future winters will be colder and snowier, but there are some uncertainties," cautioned Dr Liu.

His team's next research project is to feed Arctic ice projections and the mechanisms they have deciphered into various computer models of climate, and see whether they do forecast a growing winter chill.



More on This Story
Related Stories

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Wharf Rat2/28/2012 9:33:54 AM
   of 22730
 
In 86,000 year temperature record from Central America no climate change matches the rate of current one Rapid climate change and no-analog vegetation in lowland Central America during the last 86,000 years - Correa-Metrio et al. (2012)

Abstract: "Glacial–interglacial climate cycles are known to have triggered migrations and reassortments of tropical biota. Although long-term precessionally-driven changes in temperature and precipitation have been demonstrated using tropical sediment records, responses to abrupt climate changes, e.g. the cooling of Heinrich stadials or warmings of the deglaciation, are poorly documented. The best predictions of future forest responses to ongoing warming will rely on evaluating the influences of both abrupt and long-term climate changes on past ecosystems. A sedimentary sequence recovered from Lake Petén-Itzá, Guatemalan lowlands, provided a natural archive of environmental history. Pollen and charcoal analyses were used to reconstruct the vegetation and climate history of the area during the last 86,000 years. We found that vegetation composition and air temperature were strongly influenced by millennial-scale changes in the North Atlantic Ocean. Whereas Greenland warm interstadials were associated with warm and relatively wet conditions in the Central American lowlands, cold Greenland stadials, especially those associated with Heinrich events, caused extremely dry and cold conditions. Even though the vegetation seemed to have been highly resilient, plant associations without modern analogs emerged mostly following sharp climate pulses of either warmth or cold, and were paralleled by exceptionally high rates of ecological change. Although pulses of temperature change are evident in this 86,000-year record none matched the rates projected for the 21st Century. According to our findings, the ongoing rapid warming will cause no-modern-analog communities, which given the improbability of returning to lower-than-modern CO2 levels, anthropogenic barriers to migration, and increased anthropogenic fires, will pose immense threats to the biodiversity of the region."

Citation: Alexander Correa-Metrio, Mark B. Bush, Kenneth R. Cabrera, Shannon Sully, Mark Brenner, David A. Hodell, Jaime Escobar, Tom Guilderson, Quaternary Science Reviews, dx.doi.org.

skepticalscience.com
more new research at link

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.