The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide

Premier among their many unscientific beliefs, deniers cling to the notion that some magical negative feedback will avert serious climate impacts. Sadly, we will need magic to save humanity if we foolishly decide to listen to the deniers and to keep ignoring the one negative feedback that science says can certainly save humanity -- simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientific reality based on actual observations (not to mention the paleoclimate record) is that the climate models are not underestimating negative feedbacks -- the models are wildly underestimating the positive or amplifying feedbacks. Among the greatest concerns is the growing evidence that the major carbon sinks are saturating, that a greater and greater fraction of human emissions will end up in the atmosphere.

A new study in Geophysical Research Letters ($ub. req'd), "Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO₂ by the East/Japan Sea," finds,

The results presented in this paper indicate that the rate of CO₂ accumulation in the deepest basin of the East/Japan Sea has considerably decreased over the transition period between 1992-1999 and 1999-2007.

The authors explain to the U.K.'s Guardian why this is an amplifying feedback, why warming is diminishing the ability of the ocean sink to absorb CO2:

The world's oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide pollution each year, about a quarter of all produced, and even a slight weakening of this natural process would leave significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere. That would require countries to adopt much stricter emissions targets to prevent dangerous rises in temperature.

Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the "very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming".

He says the warmer conditions disrupt a process known as "ventilation" -- the way seawater flows and mixes and drags absorbed CO2 from surface waters to the depths. He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.

"Our result ... unequivocally demonstrated that oceanic uptake of CO2 has been directly affected by warming-induced weakening of vertical ventilation," he says ...

Lee adds: "In other words, the increase in atmospheric temperature due to global warming can profoundly influence the ocean ventilation, thereby decreasing the uptake rate of CO2."

This study matches other recent research on ocean sink saturation. In 2007, the BBC reported, "The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced" based on more than 90,000 ship-based measurements of CO2 absorption over ten years. The Global Carbon Project analysis of the "natural land and ocean CO₂ sinks" finds:

The myth of the universal market … debunked!

Communication among economists, other social scientists, natural scientists, and lawyers is far from perfect. When the topic is the environment, discourse across disciplines is both important and difficult. Economists themselves have likely contributed to some misunderstandings about how they think about the environment, perhaps through enthusiasm for market solutions, perhaps by neglecting to make explicit all of the necessary qualifications, and perhaps simply by the use of technical jargon.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are several prevalent and very striking myths about how economists think about the environment. Because of this, my colleague Don Fullerton, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois, and I posed the following question in an article in Nature: how do economists really think about the environment? In this and several succeeding postings, I'm going to answer this question, by examining several of the most prevalent myths.

One myth is that economists believe that the market solves all problems. Indeed, the "first theorem of welfare economics" states that private markets are perfectly efficient on their own, with no interference from government, so long as certain conditions are met. This theorem, easily proven, is exceptionally powerful, because it means that no one needs to tell producers of goods and services what to sell to which consumers. Instead, self-interested producers and self-interested consumers meet in the marketplace, engage in trade, and thereby achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, as if "guided by an invisible hand," as Adam Smith wrote in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. This notion of maximum general welfare is what economists mean by the "efficiency" of competitive markets.

The real cost is the cost of doing nothing

That's always the mantra: Serious climate policy is too pricey, especially in this economy.

To that I say: Watch this excellent video from King 5 News. (It's almost 16 minutes long, but well worth it.) The impacts of climate change, such as flooding, carry a very steep cost. And judging by the video, the costs aren't mostly borne by the rich -- they're paid for by those who can least afford it.

I want to be perfectly clear.The floods in Western Washington -- this year and in several recent years -- are completely consistent with what the climate science has been predicting for the Northwest. It doesn't really matter whether these particular floods are the direct result of global warming (that's an untestable hypothesis),what matters is that this is exactly what we should expect in the future. If the scientists are right, get ready for more.

So if you think carbon pricing is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for failing to put a price on carbon.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders urge action to avoid deforestation

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called on Monday for action...

What the Obama presidency means

For several days I've been pondering how to write something interesting or insightful about Obama and What It All Means -- something that hasn't been written a hundred other places. (The internets are choked with Obama-related profundity right now.)

In the end, though, profundity is not what's needed. Obama did plenty of that on the trail, and the very fact of his ascension to office speaks for itself.

Instead, what's called for is some bluntness. The Obama presidency is in a political vise grip, squeezed between two facts:

1. The dire situation described by the fourth IPCC report is, by all indications, an underestimate. We are careening toward catastrophe, and to avoid it we'll likely have to virtually eliminate U.S. carbon emissions by 2050, while also engineering a whole range of difficult international agreements. If we don't, it's not exaggerating to say that unprecedented human misery will result, potentially putting at risk the very preconditions of human civilization.


2. There is nothing close to the public or political support necessary to pass the kind of sweeping policies necessary to eliminate America's emissions. The U.S. political class, to say nothing of the public, is nowhere near understanding or internalizing the implications of fact No. 1. By and large climate change is still viewed as a nagging, marginal, far-off problem to be addressed to the extent (and only to the extent) that it doesn't cause any economic dislocation.

This is just another way of rephrasing Gore's famous warning that the politically possible falls well short of what's necessary. The politically possible has moved forward considerably with Obama taking office, Pelosi running the House, Waxman running the Energy Committee, Markey running the Energy Subcommittee, and competent professionals in charge of executive branch agencies. But it is still far, far short. Even many people in the green world don't really get the existential urgency involved.

Over the next four/eight years, Obama (with help from many others) will bridge that gap, and we'll have a shot at a prosperous green future. Or he won't, and our children and grandchildren will inherit a world filled with unthinkable suffering.

That's it.

Umbra on bamboo origins

Dear Umbra, Sustainably grown bamboo is a very good choice for fabrics. But how does the consumer know it is...

As evidence mounts of deadly bacteria from CAFO pigs, will the FDA and the USDA act?

Last June, Iowa State researcher Tara Smith delivered preliminary results of a study linking the deadly, antibiotic-resistant pathogen MRSA to pigs in concentrated animal feedlot operations. Despite mounting evidence of the link from Canada and Europe, U.S. public-health officials had never formally studied the issue, even though MRSA kills something close to 20,000 Americans every year -- more than AIDS.

In a must-read blog post at the time, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's ace health reporter Andrew Schneider documents the craven inaction of the FDA and the USDA as this public-health menace gained force. (I weighed in here.) As Schneider wrote:

An effective way to say there isn't a problem is never to look. That seems to be precisely what most U.S. government food-safety agencies are doing when it comes to determining whether the livestock in our food supply is contaminated with MRSA and if so, whether the often-fatal bacterium is being passed on to consumers who buy and consume that meat

Now Smith's research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Examining CAFOs scattered in Iowa and Illinois, Smith and her team found the MRSA strain in 49 percent of pigs and 45 percent of the workers who tend them. The sample size is small; more study must be done. Will the government undertake it?

A real reckoning with the MRSA-CAFO link could deliver a devastating blow to the meat industry. To keep animals alive while stuffed together by the thousands, standing in their own collected waste, it's evidently necessary to dose them with lots of antibiotics. CAFO conditions destroy animal's immune systems; antibiotics pick up the slack. Take them away, and the CAFO model might crumble.

That, presumably, is why the Bush agencies so studiously ignored the problem. Let's hope the Obama FDA and USDA do better.

Update [2009-1-28 8:40:10 by Tom Philpott]:

The Seattle PI's indispensable Schneider reacts to the publication of Smith's findings:

So I called some disease detectives and food safety specialists in agencies responsible for ensuring that our food supply is safe. You could almost hear them cringe over the phone. And, no, to the best of their knowledge, neither the FDA, USDA nor CDC had launched systematic testing of the U.S. meat supply for MRSA. One physician said that a study was being done on the MRSA strain (ST398) that Smith had found on the pigs but added, "I don't think it has anything to do with meat."

There is no negative feedback in the climate system

The small number of credible skeptics out there (e.g., Spencer, Lindzen) have spent much of the last decade searching for a negative feedback in our climate system. If a sufficiently big one is found, then it would suggest that warming over the next century may well be small.

Most climate scientists, however, are reasonably certain that a negative feedback big enough to overwhelm the well-known positive feedbacks in the climate system, such as the water vapor feedback [PDF], does not exist. Why?

Negative feedbacks tend to dampen out climate change. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or the sun brightens, then the hypothetical negative feedback will counteract the warming, leaving the climate nearly unchanged. While it may be comforting to believe that a negative feedback exists, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the existence of a big negative feedback with our past observations of climate variability.

For example, the ice ages rely on a carbon dioxide feedback to provide their large amplitude. If there were a big negative feedback in the system, then how do you explain the large swings in to and out of ice ages? No way that I know of.

Similarly, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is also thought to be the result of a huge release of greenhouse gases. With a large negative feedback in the system, how do you explain the rapid temperature rise during that event?

Chevron's history of denial, delay, and defamation in the Ecuadorian Amazon

It has been 15 years since a group of Ecuadorian indigenous people filed a lawsuit against Texaco for oil contamination, resulting from 26 years of substandard oil extraction efforts. In those years, Texaco -- acquired by Chevron in 2001 -- consistently has denied responsibility, delayed justice, and defamed the Ecuadorian people who need help the most. In other words, the oil giant has acted like most people expect Big Oil companies to act -- like bullies -- instead of the good corporate citizens that Chevron's advertising campaigns like to portray.

Meanwhile, the Ecuadorians living in Texaco's former dumping ground suffer every day. Texaco released over 18 billion gallons of oil and toxic water into the rainforest from 1964 to 1990. Experts indicate that over 1,000 people have died from cancer. Spontaneous abortions are two to three times more likely to occur in the concession area than in other parts of Ecuador. It's almost impossible to find a family not touched by the illnesses.

Until you see the extent of the contamination, it is hard to believe. Almost 1,000 pits the size of large swimming pools scar an area the size of Rhode Island. Texaco built the pits to dump the remaining oil and toxic water after drilling. To reduce costs, Texaco violated standard industry practice and never lined the pits. As a result, the toxins have flowed directly into the streams and underground water supply. Texaco eventually covered the pits with dirt -- as if hiding the pollution would make it go away -- but never took any real steps to clean up the area. Some people even built their houses on top of the covered pits, thinking that the pits were safe.