At least that's what the University of Waterloo thinks...
http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2008/may/30fr.html
Waterloo “may be the best positioned” university in North America, perhaps in the world, to be “the leading centre in water research”, says a report that’s being made public this week by UW’s provost.
Though there are many other influences on climate such as contintental
configuration that can change over the period of hundreds of millions
of years, GHGs are still considered an primary driver of average
surface temperature. Which is why the publication by Veizer et al in
2000 (ref 4 in abstract below) of a sea surface reconstruction of
temperatures from the Palaeozoic era had led to some confusion. What
they had found was that during a period of high CO2 the sea surface
temperature had not been greatly affected. Or, there had been a
decoupling of CO2 and temperature. In today's Nature a new
reconstruction has been presented that uses a different proxy method
and finds sea surface was indeed much warmer during high CO2 periods
than during low CO2 periods. This then throws into question CO2
decoupling during the Palaeozoic era.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06085.html
Nature 449, 198-201 (13 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06085;
Received 15 April 2007; Accepted 3 July 2007
Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations
during the Palaeozoic era
Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe
Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several
times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543–248 million
years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to
concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface
temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of
the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface
temperatures based on the delta18O of carbonate fossils indicates,
however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this
period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent
of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we
present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from
fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the 'carbonate clumped
isotope' method5—an approach that, unlike the delta18O method, does
not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the
Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface
temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early
Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations
are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to
today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when
carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the
present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify
increased global temperatures1, 6.
An interesting tidbit that showed up over at Nature's "Nature Reports: Climate Change" in a story on what might be the discovery of the missing carbon sink.
Albedo effect
Other scientists have also recently come to the conclusion that northern forests, although critically important in maintaining biodiversity, might be less important in slowing climate change than tropical forests. Govindasamy Bala and Ken Caldeira found that tropical forests help cool the Earth in two ways: by storing carbon and also by reflecting the suns warming rays back to space5. "Unlike tropical forests, high latitude forests darken the Earth's surface, causing the earth to absorb more sunlight, an effect that is most pronounced in snowy regions. This darkening of the surface has a warming influence that can be stronger than the cooling influence of carbon storage in these forests," says Caldeira. This suggests that removing high-latitude forests would have a net cooling effect on the planet, whereas removal of tropical forests would result in warming.
Powered by ScribeFire.
With respect to climate change, we have abruptly passed the tipping point in what until recently has been a tense political controversy. Why? Industry leaders, nongovernmental organizations, Al Gore, and public attention have all played a role. At the core, however, it's about the relentless progress of science. As data accumulate, denialists retreat to the safety of the Wall Street Journal op-ed page or seek social relaxation with old pals from the tobacco lobby from whom they first learned to "teach the controversy." Meanwhile, political judgments are in, and the game is over. Indeed, on this page last week, a member of Parliament described how the European Union and his British colleagues are moving toward setting hard targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Working for long periods in theThat is a funny line really. Who are these scientists. The line "scientists said" is almost a journalistic cliche.
harsh and unforgiving conditions near the North and South Poles
often causes people to suffer a stew of psychological symptoms
dubbed "polar madness," scientists said on Wednesday.
While some people on polar expeditions savor a gratifyingSounds like any office in town.
sense of achievement, the researchers said, 40 to 60 percent of
them may suffer negative effects like depression, sleep
disruption, anger, irritability and conflict with co-workers.
"Some people may have difficulty adjusting to the
light-dark cycles, and so they can never get a decent night
sleep and experience a sleep disorder," he said. "Some people
can get clinically depressed. Some people just can't handle the
confinement, with seeing the same people day in and day out for
extended periods of time."
Palinkas cited more recent examples of "polar madness" atHumor is a cure all.
research stations, including one staffer clubbing another with
a claw hammer and another beating a co-worker with a pipe.
"There was a saying at the station for the remainder of the
winter that 'If you've got a gripe, use a pipe,"' he said.
Powered by ScribeFire.
The editorial seems fair in its treatment of both sides. One of the interesting points it made is the importance of public relations in establishing its scientific credentials with the general public. This is a point that many in the realm of science and in the realm of policy do not understand. The extreme value there is to be placed on, what I shall call advertising, the important role that government agencies play in our national lives. It has seemed to me that one of the key failings of government has been its public relations inaction in the face of the negative sentiment of the past twenty years. For us scientists all one has to do is look at NASA to understand the importance of public relations. Sure, they have a very exciting product (many of the other branches of government do too) but only a portion of the money spent goes to that product. NOAA scientists have also been unhappy in recent months aboutBut here I disagree with Nature. It makes absolute sense that NOAA would want its name associated with its two most highly regarded products. But I also understand the importance of keeping these organization's identities. This seems like the perfect situation for compromise. The two organizations should add NOAA to their names such as "NOAA National Weather Service" or "National Hurricane Center NOAA" thus keeping the history and associated quality while melding that scientific quality with NOAA in the public mind.
management decrees suggesting, for example, that they improve the
agency's branding by substituting 'NOAA' for 'National' in the names of
centres such as the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane
Center. Both of these outfits have distinguished histories and
identities of their own, and NOAA needs to find ways of asserting
itself and its mission in the public eye without diminishing them.
Powered by ScribeFire.
