更新日期:2009/01/27 14:35
一支國際研究小組警告說，許多氣候改變造成的影響及傷害基本上不會好轉，即使現在地球停止排放廢氣，全球氣溫依舊相當高，起碼持續到公元三千年。
氣候研究專家「所羅門」在一項視訊會議中表示，一般人可能認為如果我們停止排放二氧化碳，全球氣候就會回到一百年前、甚至兩百年前的情況，不過，事實並不如此。
任職美國國家海洋暨大氣管理局的「索羅門」說，正帶領一之國際研究小組，專研「氣候改變造成不可逆轉的傷害」，他說的「不可逆轉」是指即使人現在不再增加排放廢氣，已造成的改變還將維持一千年。
「索羅門」強調，氣候的改變是緩慢的，但無法制止，所以我們要盡快採取行動，以避免情況繼續惡化。
2009/1/30
地球：我們可愛的家----貝瑞‧布魯克教授談畜牧業和氣候變遷 Professor Barry Brook on Livestock Agriculture and Climate Change
甲烷效力是二氧化碳的七十二倍
2008.11.12 SMTV訪談澳洲貝瑞·布魯克教授
主持人：環保的觀眾大家好！
在今天的節目裏澳洲阿得雷德大學的貝瑞·布魯克教授將詳述畜牧業對環境的影響。
布魯克教授是研究全球生態學與保育生物學的專家，他擔任休伯特·威爾金爵士氣候變遷基金會主席，也是阿得雷德大學氣候變遷和永續性研究所的所長。他已出版兩本書和一百多篇科學論文，從不同的觀點探討人類對自然環境和生物多樣性的影響。
他曾獲頒澳洲科學院芬納獎章、新南威爾斯皇家學會埃奇華茲·大衛獎章和南澳皇家學會安德列沃斯獎章。
布魯克教授是名列《宇宙》雜誌的澳洲十大青年科學家。
布魯克教授強調人類必須瞭解甲烷是主要的溫室氣體之一。
布魯克教授：甲烷是很有意思的溫室氣體。許多人可能沒聽過，然而它竟是使人類造成氣候變遷的第二大溫室氣體。大家可能都聽過二氧化碳，而甲烷是影響強大且在短期內就舉足輕重的。另一種溫室氣體甲烷主要來自反芻動物、儲藏石化燃料的煤礦和天然氣田也有。例如，油井上方的火，就是燃燒甲烷所致。因此甲烷其實也是天然氣，我們會用以燒熱水等。
我最近和同事完成的某項研究證明，澳洲的全球暖化貢獻，甲烷其實居功厥偉。至少從眼前來看，其他因素都望塵莫及。而製造甲烷的大功臣則是牛、綿羊和山羊之類的反芻動物。他們在消化過程中會產生甲烷。他們咀嚼反芻的食物，而第二個胃裏的細菌會分解植物的纖維素，釋放其中的能量，該過程即所謂的厭氧程式，在無氧狀態下進行，而所產生的甲烷大多經由打嗝釋放。由於甲烷是一種強效的溫室氣體，對氣候變遷影響甚巨，卻多發生在極短的時間內。甲烷十或二十年即消失殆盡，然而若審視那段時間，會發現釋放一噸甲烷等於釋放七十二噸的二氧化碳，因此威力無窮。
根據這個資料澳洲的養牛業、畜牧業、牛、羊，目前每年約排放三百萬噸甲烷。而火力發電廠約排放一億八千萬噸二氧化碳。電廠的全球暖化貢獻似乎遠多於牛的貢獻。然而若仔細想想，甲烷以二十年為期，效力是二氧化碳的七十二倍，再二十年就變成七十二乘以三倍，很容易算出畜牧業在那段時間對全球暖化的影響更甚於火力發電廠，這是澳洲嚴重忽略的事實。
記者：您認為最近給政府的協議書對甲烷輕描淡寫嗎？
布魯克教授：是的，我認為很明顯。不同的溫室氣體對全球暖化有不同的影響，需用某種方法使它們標準化。跨政府氣候變遷小組所用的基本方法是，以一百年為期，取所有氣體的平均值，然而對甲烷而言，其實有點無意義，因為甲烷經過二十年幾乎就消失了，這種方法取其短期的所有影響均分在一百年間，使它的影響大打折扣。這些報告寫甲烷的影響是二氧化碳的二十五倍，然而當它在大氣中發生作用時，其實是七十二倍，是截然不同的。因此我認為那些報告由於那個會計問題，或因許多人不想面對，而對甲烷一筆帶過。如果要嚴肅看待減少碳排的問題，必須說明農業的碳排最重要的，也要說明目前澳洲最大的碳排元兇。
記者：因此若要影響畜牧業，淘汰它，是否有時間處理二氧化碳？
布魯克教授：是的。因為甲烷效力很強，但影響的時間短。諷刺的是，處理甲烷比處理二氧化碳迅速，因此目前雖迫在眉睫，卻是真正可以迅速清除的碳排，無關氣候變遷的理由。
舉例而言，澳洲的羊自九二年起，約從一億九千萬隻減少至一億隻，對澳洲的甲烷排放量影響甚大，是我們可以快速締造改變的例證。基本上只要澳洲的羊排放的甲烷減半即可。對牛也可如法炮製。
而改變公共建設，例如：以替代能源取代火力發電廠，同時又要迅速進行，勢必需要一大筆建設資金。我認為經濟方面比較棘手。反之，減少澳洲的牛只數量卻可迅速完成，只要數年時間，對遏止全球暖化即可立竿見影。
記者：我想回顧您和傑佛瑞·羅素全寫的《肉類的碳足跡》，您能和我們談談嗎？
布魯克教授：好的，我們這份研究在探討家庭吃牛肉所產生的碳排，並與多數人認為更能影響全球暖化的其他活動作比較，我們所舉的例子是福特四輪傳動的一輛休旅車。製造一輛會排放十七噸二氧化碳，每週駕駛每公里會產生兩百克碳排，以此為計算基準。開這輛笨重的車一周會產生六十公斤碳排，還要加上製造時產生的二氧化碳。如果採取"澳洲聯邦科學與工業研究院"所建議的完全幸福飲食法，每週平均吃三至五公斤牛肉，將會發現，即使是以甲烷的效力為二氧化碳二十五倍的標準計算，記住我剛才提過其實是七十二倍的效力，然而即使是二十五倍，每週的碳排也高達二百公斤，比福特四驅車的六十公斤還高。所以只需五年不吃肉，就可彌補四驅車所產生的碳排。這是一例。
另一項探討是生產一公斤牛排所產生的碳排。大量排放的甲烷等於生產一公斤鋁的四倍排放量。生產鋁的過程需經由電解作用，因此極為耗電。牛肉的碳排量多於生產一公斤鋁的四倍，多於開一輛四驅車所排的碳，這些事實都被嚴重忽略。因此這表示，飲食必須有氣候意識，因為生活方式對全球暖化的影響更甚於其他因素。而人們竟渾然不覺。
記者：關於生產牛肉所耗用的水，生產牛肉消耗許多水，您能談談這點嗎？
布魯克教授：好的，的確。生產一公斤牛肉耗用大量的水，生產乳品亦然。澳洲許多乳品業都設在只適合灌溉農副業的土地上，從莫瑞河引水，遍灑廣闊的牧場，以生產足夠的牧草，生產好牛奶，而這卻正是阿得雷德極度短缺的水，使庫龍因供水不足而奄奄一息。水都用以噴灑維多利亞州西部的綠草地，生產乳製品。這種用水方式一點都不明智，因此人們必須瞭解畜牧業的整體影響，體會它們何以危害全球的變遷。當然，從澳洲看到更遠的熱帶，畜牧業是驅使熱帶砍伐森林的主因之一。砍伐森林本身產生的碳排約占所有人為碳排的二成，只為用來放牧牛只。因此畜牧業又是砍伐森林的元兇，伐木燃燒直接排放二氧化碳，然後在那裏養牛，也產生更多甲烷。因此，畜牧業無疑有著長長的陰影，這正是聯合國去年發表的報告標題，內容關於畜牧業對全球變遷的整體影響，影響相當深遠普遍。
記者：您認為政府應更努力讓人民瞭解，如何盡一己之力助地球度過危機嗎？
布魯克教授：我認為遺漏農業碳排等於發出錯誤信號，因為使社會的這部分不必降低碳排。其實社會的每部分都負有責任，如此只是加重其他部分的負擔，而且不正當地承認畜養動物對澳洲環境所造成的影響。人們經常談論氣候變遷的長期影響和本世紀末的情況，然而我們正目睹北極夏冰的消失；熱帶氣候系統的擴展；非洲撒哈拉和澳洲的極度乾旱；預測二、三十年後，五十、一百年後，才會發生的影響，目前卻正在發生，而且我們即將越過美國系統所謂的臨界點，屆時氣候變遷將如脫韁的野馬，或至少會因地球系統的變化而變本加厲，我們正處於決定性的社會臨界點和環保臨界點，該立即行動了!已經刻不容緩!
Professor Barry Brook on Livestock Agriculture and Climate Change
Professor Brook is an international research leader in global ecology and conservation biology. He holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
He has published two books and over 100 scientific papers on various aspects of human impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity. He has been awarded the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal, Edgeworth David Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales, and the H.G. Andrewartha Medal by the Royal Society of South Australia. Professor Brook was listed by Cosmos as one of Australia's top 10 young scientists. Professor Brook emphasizes the need to recognize methane as a major contributor of greenhouse gases.
Professor Barry Brook: Methane is an interesting greenhouse gas; many people may not have heard of it, but it’s actually the second most powerful greenhouse gas in terms of human’s total contribution to climate change.
Everyone has probably heard of CO2. Methane is another greenhouse gas that has a large impact and it’s especially important over shorter time periods. Methane is produced mainly by ruminant animals and also it’s released from fossil fuel reserves, such as coal mines and gas fields. Those fires that we see at the top of an oil well for instance, that is the flaring of methane. So methane is actually natural gas too, that we would burn to heat water and so on.
Professor Barry Brook: I’ve done some work recently with a couple of colleagues showing that in fact Australia’s contribution to global warming is more to do with methane, at least in the short term, than it is with anything else. And even more than that, it’s more to do with methane produced by ruminant animals, cattle and sheep and goats for instance.
As part of their natural digestion process they produce methane; they chew the cud, they have a second stomach, and inside that stomach there’s bacteria that break down cellulose in grass to release energy. That’s a process that’s known as an anaerobic process, so it’s in the absence of oxygen and that process causes the release of methane, mostly through belching.
Now because it’s such a powerful greenhouse gas, it has a disproportionate effect on climate change. But most of its impact occurs over a fairly brief period of time, ten or twenty years, almost all the methane is gone. But if you look over that time period and for every ton of methane that’s released, that’s the equivalent to releasing 72 tons of carbon dioxide.
CH4 = 72 * CO2
So it packs a big punch. So to put that into context, Australia’s cattle industry, livestock industry, cattle and sheep, currently releases about 3 million tons thereabouts of methane per year.
Australia’s Live Stock = 3 million tons methane per year. * 72 = 216 million tons methane
Australia’s coal-fired power stations = 180 million tons of CO2
Whereas our coal-fired power stations release about 180 million tons of CO2. So it sounds like coal-fired power stations contribute much more than our cattle do to global warming.
But if you think that methane packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period, then over those next two decades you multiply three by 72. It’s pretty easy to work out that our cattle and sheep industry actually contributes more to global warming than our coal-fired power stations over that period. So that is a vastly underappreciated fact in Australia.
SupremeMasterTV: Do you think that methane is underappreciated in our recent submissions to the government?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, I think that’s quite apparent. If you look at different greenhouse gases, they have a different contribution to global warming. So you need some method of standardizing them. The basic method that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses is to average everything over a 100 year period.
But for methane that is actually a bit pointless, because it’s almost all gone after about 20 years. So you have taken all of its short term contribution and smeared that out over 100 years to make it much less than it would otherwise be. So, if you look at these reports they will suggest it has about 25 times the impact of CO2.
But really when it’s up there in the atmosphere doing its work, it’s 72 times the impact and that makes a big difference. So I think If we want to be serious about our emissions reductions, we have to account for agricultural emissions and we have to, most importantly, account for Australia’s
greatest contribution in the short term too.
SupremeMasterTV: So if we were to have an effect on the animal agriculture, phase it out, would that buy us time with the CO2 technologies?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, because methane has a very powerful effect, but a short-term effect; ironically, you can do something about it pretty quickly compared to CO2. So although it’s really important right now, it’s something we can really purge out of our emissions very quickly. For reasons disconnected with climate change, for instance, Australia’s sheep population declined from about a 190 million to less than a 100 million since 1992.
That’s had a large impact on Australia’s methane emissions. It gives you an example of how quickly we can make that change, basically halved the emissions produced by Australia’s sheep. There is no reason why you can’t do that for cattle as well. Whereas to change over societies’ infrastructure, for instance from coal-fired power stations to alternative forms of energy, whilst that needs to happen very quickly, it requires a large turnover of capital infrastructure, things which tend to be,
I think, economically more intractable.
Whereas,reducing the head of cattle in Australia is something that could be done quickly, just over a couple of years and have a huge impact on our global-warming impact.
SupremeMasterTV: I’d like to talk to you about the review that you did with Geoff Russell. It’s called, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint.” Can you tell us about that?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, this was a study we did which looked at the relative impact of eating beef on a families’ CO2 emissions compared to some of their other activities that most people might suspect would have a much greater contribution to global warming. The example we used was, let’s say you have a large four-wheel-drive vehicle, a Ford Territory.
So that costs about 17 tons of CO2 emissions to build the thing and then to run it each week it might be about 200 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. So, you can make the calculation on that basis, it might be 60 kilograms of CO2 a week that you’re using to drive this lumbering Ford Territory around, as well as the emissions that went into producing it.
If you eat what the CSIRO, “Total Wellbeing Diet” recommends is the average weekly consumption of beef, which is somewhere between 3 to 5 kilograms, then you find that when you do the calculations for methane, even when it’s using the standard, which is 25 times as powerful as CO2, and remember earlier I said that really we should be talking about 72 times as powerful. But even at 25 times as powerful, that would be releasing about 200 kilograms a week compared to 60 from your Ford Territory.
So you only need to go for about five years cutting out that meat in your diet and you’ve paid for the emissions of that great four-wheel drive;
that’s one example. Another way to look at it is the amount of emissions produced by a kilogram of steak. That’s so emissions intensive in terms of methane that it’s the equivalent to four times the emissions that would be released by producing a kilogram of aluminum, which is considered incredibly energy intensive, and using a lot of electricity to actually produce that aluminum by electrolysis.
Beef, four times more than producing a kilogram of aluminum, beef being much more of a contributor than driving a four-wheel vehicle. These are facts which are Greatly nderappreciated, so it means you need to be climate conscious about your diet, because there are some impacts in your lifestyle that will have a much greater effect on global warming than others and people don’t actually understand what they are.
SupremeMasterTV: In relation to water that they use to grow beef. There is a lot of, water used in that regard. Can you tell us about that?
Professor Barry Brook:Yes, indeed, there is a lot of water that goes into producing a kilogram of beef and a lot of water also goes into producing dairy products.
Much dairy in Australia is conducted on lands that wouldn’t actually be suitable for dairy except for irrigate agriculture. So this is water that is piped from the Murray and sprayed over vast areas of pasture to produce sufficiently green pastures to produce good milk. But that’s the same water that’s in desperately short supply in Adelaide, that’s killing the Coorong, for instance, because it’s not getting enough water flow.
These are being sprayed onto the green fields of Western Victoria to produce dairy. It’s not actually a very sensible use of water at all.So I think people have to look at the total impact of livestock to really appreciate why they can be particularly damaging to global change. Indeed, looking further afield than Australia, to the tropics, one of the major drivers of tropical deforestation, which in itself is responsible for about 20%, a fifth of all the human CO2 emissions, is driven by clearance of tropical forest for cattle grazing.
So again it’s a driver of deforestation, cause of CO2 emissions directly by chopping down, burning, mostly burning those trees and then once the cattle are there, producing a whole lot more methane as well.
So, there is no doubt that livestock have a long shadow and indeed that was the title of the report produced by the United Nations last year looking at the total impact of livestock on global change. It’s pretty profound and it’s pretty pervasive.
SupremeMasterTV:Do you think that our government should be doing more as regards to letting people know about how they can act as individuals to help with our planetary crisis?
Prof Brook: I think leaving agriculture out of the equation sends the wrong signal because it exempts a sector of society from making greenhouse gas cuts, when in fact every sector of society needs to contribute, so it’s just moving the burden to other parts of society. And it’s not rightfully cknowledging the impact, the environmental impact that rearing animals have on Australia. People often talk about climate change as having a long-term impact and what it’s going to do by the end of the century. Yet we’re observing impacts such as the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, an expansion of tropical weather systems, very intense droughts in sub-Saharan Africa and indeed in Australia.
The sort of impacts we predicted for 20, 30, 50, 100 years off are occurring now.
And there’s also a great risk that we’re going to cross what are known as tipping points in US system, where we start to get runaway climate change, or at least climate change that’s greatly accelerated by changes to the Earth system.
We’re at a crucial social tipping point and a crucial environmental tipping point right now. Now is the time to take action. It’s urgent.
http://suprememastertv.com/tw/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video_tw&wr_id=44&goto_url=&sca=sosv_1&url=link2_0
2008.11.12 SMTV訪談澳洲貝瑞·布魯克教授
主持人：環保的觀眾大家好！
在今天的節目裏澳洲阿得雷德大學的貝瑞·布魯克教授將詳述畜牧業對環境的影響。
布魯克教授是研究全球生態學與保育生物學的專家，他擔任休伯特·威爾金爵士氣候變遷基金會主席，也是阿得雷德大學氣候變遷和永續性研究所的所長。他已出版兩本書和一百多篇科學論文，從不同的觀點探討人類對自然環境和生物多樣性的影響。
他曾獲頒澳洲科學院芬納獎章、新南威爾斯皇家學會埃奇華茲·大衛獎章和南澳皇家學會安德列沃斯獎章。
布魯克教授是名列《宇宙》雜誌的澳洲十大青年科學家。
布魯克教授強調人類必須瞭解甲烷是主要的溫室氣體之一。
布魯克教授：甲烷是很有意思的溫室氣體。許多人可能沒聽過，然而它竟是使人類造成氣候變遷的第二大溫室氣體。大家可能都聽過二氧化碳，而甲烷是影響強大且在短期內就舉足輕重的。另一種溫室氣體甲烷主要來自反芻動物、儲藏石化燃料的煤礦和天然氣田也有。例如，油井上方的火，就是燃燒甲烷所致。因此甲烷其實也是天然氣，我們會用以燒熱水等。
我最近和同事完成的某項研究證明，澳洲的全球暖化貢獻，甲烷其實居功厥偉。至少從眼前來看，其他因素都望塵莫及。而製造甲烷的大功臣則是牛、綿羊和山羊之類的反芻動物。他們在消化過程中會產生甲烷。他們咀嚼反芻的食物，而第二個胃裏的細菌會分解植物的纖維素，釋放其中的能量，該過程即所謂的厭氧程式，在無氧狀態下進行，而所產生的甲烷大多經由打嗝釋放。由於甲烷是一種強效的溫室氣體，對氣候變遷影響甚巨，卻多發生在極短的時間內。甲烷十或二十年即消失殆盡，然而若審視那段時間，會發現釋放一噸甲烷等於釋放七十二噸的二氧化碳，因此威力無窮。
根據這個資料澳洲的養牛業、畜牧業、牛、羊，目前每年約排放三百萬噸甲烷。而火力發電廠約排放一億八千萬噸二氧化碳。電廠的全球暖化貢獻似乎遠多於牛的貢獻。然而若仔細想想，甲烷以二十年為期，效力是二氧化碳的七十二倍，再二十年就變成七十二乘以三倍，很容易算出畜牧業在那段時間對全球暖化的影響更甚於火力發電廠，這是澳洲嚴重忽略的事實。
記者：您認為最近給政府的協議書對甲烷輕描淡寫嗎？
布魯克教授：是的，我認為很明顯。不同的溫室氣體對全球暖化有不同的影響，需用某種方法使它們標準化。跨政府氣候變遷小組所用的基本方法是，以一百年為期，取所有氣體的平均值，然而對甲烷而言，其實有點無意義，因為甲烷經過二十年幾乎就消失了，這種方法取其短期的所有影響均分在一百年間，使它的影響大打折扣。這些報告寫甲烷的影響是二氧化碳的二十五倍，然而當它在大氣中發生作用時，其實是七十二倍，是截然不同的。因此我認為那些報告由於那個會計問題，或因許多人不想面對，而對甲烷一筆帶過。如果要嚴肅看待減少碳排的問題，必須說明農業的碳排最重要的，也要說明目前澳洲最大的碳排元兇。
記者：因此若要影響畜牧業，淘汰它，是否有時間處理二氧化碳？
布魯克教授：是的。因為甲烷效力很強，但影響的時間短。諷刺的是，處理甲烷比處理二氧化碳迅速，因此目前雖迫在眉睫，卻是真正可以迅速清除的碳排，無關氣候變遷的理由。
舉例而言，澳洲的羊自九二年起，約從一億九千萬隻減少至一億隻，對澳洲的甲烷排放量影響甚大，是我們可以快速締造改變的例證。基本上只要澳洲的羊排放的甲烷減半即可。對牛也可如法炮製。
而改變公共建設，例如：以替代能源取代火力發電廠，同時又要迅速進行，勢必需要一大筆建設資金。我認為經濟方面比較棘手。反之，減少澳洲的牛只數量卻可迅速完成，只要數年時間，對遏止全球暖化即可立竿見影。
記者：我想回顧您和傑佛瑞·羅素全寫的《肉類的碳足跡》，您能和我們談談嗎？
布魯克教授：好的，我們這份研究在探討家庭吃牛肉所產生的碳排，並與多數人認為更能影響全球暖化的其他活動作比較，我們所舉的例子是福特四輪傳動的一輛休旅車。製造一輛會排放十七噸二氧化碳，每週駕駛每公里會產生兩百克碳排，以此為計算基準。開這輛笨重的車一周會產生六十公斤碳排，還要加上製造時產生的二氧化碳。如果採取"澳洲聯邦科學與工業研究院"所建議的完全幸福飲食法，每週平均吃三至五公斤牛肉，將會發現，即使是以甲烷的效力為二氧化碳二十五倍的標準計算，記住我剛才提過其實是七十二倍的效力，然而即使是二十五倍，每週的碳排也高達二百公斤，比福特四驅車的六十公斤還高。所以只需五年不吃肉，就可彌補四驅車所產生的碳排。這是一例。
另一項探討是生產一公斤牛排所產生的碳排。大量排放的甲烷等於生產一公斤鋁的四倍排放量。生產鋁的過程需經由電解作用，因此極為耗電。牛肉的碳排量多於生產一公斤鋁的四倍，多於開一輛四驅車所排的碳，這些事實都被嚴重忽略。因此這表示，飲食必須有氣候意識，因為生活方式對全球暖化的影響更甚於其他因素。而人們竟渾然不覺。
記者：關於生產牛肉所耗用的水，生產牛肉消耗許多水，您能談談這點嗎？
布魯克教授：好的，的確。生產一公斤牛肉耗用大量的水，生產乳品亦然。澳洲許多乳品業都設在只適合灌溉農副業的土地上，從莫瑞河引水，遍灑廣闊的牧場，以生產足夠的牧草，生產好牛奶，而這卻正是阿得雷德極度短缺的水，使庫龍因供水不足而奄奄一息。水都用以噴灑維多利亞州西部的綠草地，生產乳製品。這種用水方式一點都不明智，因此人們必須瞭解畜牧業的整體影響，體會它們何以危害全球的變遷。當然，從澳洲看到更遠的熱帶，畜牧業是驅使熱帶砍伐森林的主因之一。砍伐森林本身產生的碳排約占所有人為碳排的二成，只為用來放牧牛只。因此畜牧業又是砍伐森林的元兇，伐木燃燒直接排放二氧化碳，然後在那裏養牛，也產生更多甲烷。因此，畜牧業無疑有著長長的陰影，這正是聯合國去年發表的報告標題，內容關於畜牧業對全球變遷的整體影響，影響相當深遠普遍。
記者：您認為政府應更努力讓人民瞭解，如何盡一己之力助地球度過危機嗎？
布魯克教授：我認為遺漏農業碳排等於發出錯誤信號，因為使社會的這部分不必降低碳排。其實社會的每部分都負有責任，如此只是加重其他部分的負擔，而且不正當地承認畜養動物對澳洲環境所造成的影響。人們經常談論氣候變遷的長期影響和本世紀末的情況，然而我們正目睹北極夏冰的消失；熱帶氣候系統的擴展；非洲撒哈拉和澳洲的極度乾旱；預測二、三十年後，五十、一百年後，才會發生的影響，目前卻正在發生，而且我們即將越過美國系統所謂的臨界點，屆時氣候變遷將如脫韁的野馬，或至少會因地球系統的變化而變本加厲，我們正處於決定性的社會臨界點和環保臨界點，該立即行動了!已經刻不容緩!
Professor Barry Brook on Livestock Agriculture and Climate Change
Professor Brook is an international research leader in global ecology and conservation biology. He holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
He has published two books and over 100 scientific papers on various aspects of human impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity. He has been awarded the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal, Edgeworth David Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales, and the H.G. Andrewartha Medal by the Royal Society of South Australia. Professor Brook was listed by Cosmos as one of Australia's top 10 young scientists. Professor Brook emphasizes the need to recognize methane as a major contributor of greenhouse gases.
Professor Barry Brook: Methane is an interesting greenhouse gas; many people may not have heard of it, but it’s actually the second most powerful greenhouse gas in terms of human’s total contribution to climate change.
Everyone has probably heard of CO2. Methane is another greenhouse gas that has a large impact and it’s especially important over shorter time periods. Methane is produced mainly by ruminant animals and also it’s released from fossil fuel reserves, such as coal mines and gas fields. Those fires that we see at the top of an oil well for instance, that is the flaring of methane. So methane is actually natural gas too, that we would burn to heat water and so on.
Professor Barry Brook: I’ve done some work recently with a couple of colleagues showing that in fact Australia’s contribution to global warming is more to do with methane, at least in the short term, than it is with anything else. And even more than that, it’s more to do with methane produced by ruminant animals, cattle and sheep and goats for instance.
As part of their natural digestion process they produce methane; they chew the cud, they have a second stomach, and inside that stomach there’s bacteria that break down cellulose in grass to release energy. That’s a process that’s known as an anaerobic process, so it’s in the absence of oxygen and that process causes the release of methane, mostly through belching.
Now because it’s such a powerful greenhouse gas, it has a disproportionate effect on climate change. But most of its impact occurs over a fairly brief period of time, ten or twenty years, almost all the methane is gone. But if you look over that time period and for every ton of methane that’s released, that’s the equivalent to releasing 72 tons of carbon dioxide.
CH4 = 72 * CO2
So it packs a big punch. So to put that into context, Australia’s cattle industry, livestock industry, cattle and sheep, currently releases about 3 million tons thereabouts of methane per year.
Australia’s Live Stock = 3 million tons methane per year. * 72 = 216 million tons methane
Australia’s coal-fired power stations = 180 million tons of CO2
Whereas our coal-fired power stations release about 180 million tons of CO2. So it sounds like coal-fired power stations contribute much more than our cattle do to global warming.
But if you think that methane packs 72 times the punch of CO2 over a 20 year period, then over those next two decades you multiply three by 72. It’s pretty easy to work out that our cattle and sheep industry actually contributes more to global warming than our coal-fired power stations over that period. So that is a vastly underappreciated fact in Australia.
SupremeMasterTV: Do you think that methane is underappreciated in our recent submissions to the government?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, I think that’s quite apparent. If you look at different greenhouse gases, they have a different contribution to global warming. So you need some method of standardizing them. The basic method that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses is to average everything over a 100 year period.
But for methane that is actually a bit pointless, because it’s almost all gone after about 20 years. So you have taken all of its short term contribution and smeared that out over 100 years to make it much less than it would otherwise be. So, if you look at these reports they will suggest it has about 25 times the impact of CO2.
But really when it’s up there in the atmosphere doing its work, it’s 72 times the impact and that makes a big difference. So I think If we want to be serious about our emissions reductions, we have to account for agricultural emissions and we have to, most importantly, account for Australia’s
greatest contribution in the short term too.
SupremeMasterTV: So if we were to have an effect on the animal agriculture, phase it out, would that buy us time with the CO2 technologies?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, because methane has a very powerful effect, but a short-term effect; ironically, you can do something about it pretty quickly compared to CO2. So although it’s really important right now, it’s something we can really purge out of our emissions very quickly. For reasons disconnected with climate change, for instance, Australia’s sheep population declined from about a 190 million to less than a 100 million since 1992.
That’s had a large impact on Australia’s methane emissions. It gives you an example of how quickly we can make that change, basically halved the emissions produced by Australia’s sheep. There is no reason why you can’t do that for cattle as well. Whereas to change over societies’ infrastructure, for instance from coal-fired power stations to alternative forms of energy, whilst that needs to happen very quickly, it requires a large turnover of capital infrastructure, things which tend to be,
I think, economically more intractable.
Whereas,reducing the head of cattle in Australia is something that could be done quickly, just over a couple of years and have a huge impact on our global-warming impact.
SupremeMasterTV: I’d like to talk to you about the review that you did with Geoff Russell. It’s called, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint.” Can you tell us about that?
Professor Barry Brook: Yes, this was a study we did which looked at the relative impact of eating beef on a families’ CO2 emissions compared to some of their other activities that most people might suspect would have a much greater contribution to global warming. The example we used was, let’s say you have a large four-wheel-drive vehicle, a Ford Territory.
So that costs about 17 tons of CO2 emissions to build the thing and then to run it each week it might be about 200 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. So, you can make the calculation on that basis, it might be 60 kilograms of CO2 a week that you’re using to drive this lumbering Ford Territory around, as well as the emissions that went into producing it.
If you eat what the CSIRO, “Total Wellbeing Diet” recommends is the average weekly consumption of beef, which is somewhere between 3 to 5 kilograms, then you find that when you do the calculations for methane, even when it’s using the standard, which is 25 times as powerful as CO2, and remember earlier I said that really we should be talking about 72 times as powerful. But even at 25 times as powerful, that would be releasing about 200 kilograms a week compared to 60 from your Ford Territory.
So you only need to go for about five years cutting out that meat in your diet and you’ve paid for the emissions of that great four-wheel drive;
that’s one example. Another way to look at it is the amount of emissions produced by a kilogram of steak. That’s so emissions intensive in terms of methane that it’s the equivalent to four times the emissions that would be released by producing a kilogram of aluminum, which is considered incredibly energy intensive, and using a lot of electricity to actually produce that aluminum by electrolysis.
Beef, four times more than producing a kilogram of aluminum, beef being much more of a contributor than driving a four-wheel vehicle. These are facts which are Greatly nderappreciated, so it means you need to be climate conscious about your diet, because there are some impacts in your lifestyle that will have a much greater effect on global warming than others and people don’t actually understand what they are.
SupremeMasterTV: In relation to water that they use to grow beef. There is a lot of, water used in that regard. Can you tell us about that?
Professor Barry Brook:Yes, indeed, there is a lot of water that goes into producing a kilogram of beef and a lot of water also goes into producing dairy products.
Much dairy in Australia is conducted on lands that wouldn’t actually be suitable for dairy except for irrigate agriculture. So this is water that is piped from the Murray and sprayed over vast areas of pasture to produce sufficiently green pastures to produce good milk. But that’s the same water that’s in desperately short supply in Adelaide, that’s killing the Coorong, for instance, because it’s not getting enough water flow.
These are being sprayed onto the green fields of Western Victoria to produce dairy. It’s not actually a very sensible use of water at all.So I think people have to look at the total impact of livestock to really appreciate why they can be particularly damaging to global change. Indeed, looking further afield than Australia, to the tropics, one of the major drivers of tropical deforestation, which in itself is responsible for about 20%, a fifth of all the human CO2 emissions, is driven by clearance of tropical forest for cattle grazing.
So again it’s a driver of deforestation, cause of CO2 emissions directly by chopping down, burning, mostly burning those trees and then once the cattle are there, producing a whole lot more methane as well.
So, there is no doubt that livestock have a long shadow and indeed that was the title of the report produced by the United Nations last year looking at the total impact of livestock on global change. It’s pretty profound and it’s pretty pervasive.
SupremeMasterTV:Do you think that our government should be doing more as regards to letting people know about how they can act as individuals to help with our planetary crisis?
Prof Brook: I think leaving agriculture out of the equation sends the wrong signal because it exempts a sector of society from making greenhouse gas cuts, when in fact every sector of society needs to contribute, so it’s just moving the burden to other parts of society. And it’s not rightfully cknowledging the impact, the environmental impact that rearing animals have on Australia. People often talk about climate change as having a long-term impact and what it’s going to do by the end of the century. Yet we’re observing impacts such as the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, an expansion of tropical weather systems, very intense droughts in sub-Saharan Africa and indeed in Australia.
The sort of impacts we predicted for 20, 30, 50, 100 years off are occurring now.
And there’s also a great risk that we’re going to cross what are known as tipping points in US system, where we start to get runaway climate change, or at least climate change that’s greatly accelerated by changes to the Earth system.
We’re at a crucial social tipping point and a crucial environmental tipping point right now. Now is the time to take action. It’s urgent.
http://suprememastertv.com/tw/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_video_tw&wr_id=44&goto_url=&sca=sosv_1&url=link2_0
2009/1/29
2009/1/28
How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
Andy Potts
Key Concepts
Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.
Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat.
Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.
Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)
The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.
In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included, incurs hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel for farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all lead to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just half a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 1.2 ounces of CO2 as a result of applying insecticide and fertilizer, pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table generates another two ounces of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, for a total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces.
But that is nothing compared to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an ecological economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane has roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those emissions are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.
Raising animals also requires a large amount of feed per unit of body weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and Sam Soret of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of beef protein for the table requires more than 10 pounds of plant protein with all the emissions of greenhouse gases that grain farming entails. Finally, farms for raising animals produce numerous wastes that give rise to greenhouse gases.
Taking such factors into account, Subak calculated that producing a pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2 pound for pound, more than 36 times the CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emitted by producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the impact of beef; I estimate that producing a pound of pork generates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; a pound of chicken generates 1.1 pounds of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. And the economically efficient CAFO system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions, is far better than most: the FAO data I noted earlier imply that the world average emissions from producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.
Solutions?
What can be done? Improving waste management and farming practices would certainly reduce the "carbon footprint" of beef production. Methane-capturing systems, for instance, can put cows' waste to use in generating electricity. But those systems remain too costly to be commercially viable.
Individuals, too, can reduce the effects of food production on planetary climate. To some degree, after all, our diets are a choice. By choosing more wisely, we can make a difference. Eating locally produced food, for instance, can reduce the need for transport though food inefficiently shipped in small batches on trucks from nearby farms can turn out to save surprisingly little in greenhouse emissions. And in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, people could eat less meat, particularly beef.
The graphics on the following pages quantify the links between beef production and greenhouse gases in sobering detail. The take-home lesson is clear: we ought to give careful thought to diet and its consequences for the planet if we are serious about limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "The Greenhouse Hamburger".
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
Key Concepts
Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.
Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat.
Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.
Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)
The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.
In truth, every food we consume, vegetables and fruits included, incurs hidden environmental costs: transportation, refrigeration and fuel for farming, as well as methane emissions from plants and animals, all lead to a buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Take asparagus: in a report prepared for the city of Seattle, Daniel J. Morgan of the University of Washington and his co-workers found that growing just half a pound of the vegetable in Peru emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 1.2 ounces of CO2 as a result of applying insecticide and fertilizer, pumping water and running heavy, gas-guzzling farm equipment. To refrigerate and transport the vegetable to an American dinner table generates another two ounces of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, for a total CO2 equivalent of 3.2 ounces.
But that is nothing compared to beef. In 1999 Susan Subak, an ecological economist then at the University of East Anglia in England, found that, depending on the production method, cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for each pound of beef they produce. Because methane has roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2, those emissions are the equivalent of releasing between 3.6 and 6.8 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere for each pound of beef produced.
Raising animals also requires a large amount of feed per unit of body weight. In 2003 Lucas Reijnders of the University of Amsterdam and Sam Soret of Loma Linda University estimated that producing a pound of beef protein for the table requires more than 10 pounds of plant protein with all the emissions of greenhouse gases that grain farming entails. Finally, farms for raising animals produce numerous wastes that give rise to greenhouse gases.
Taking such factors into account, Subak calculated that producing a pound of beef in a feedlot, or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) system, generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2 pound for pound, more than 36 times the CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emitted by producing asparagus. Even other common meats cannot match the impact of beef; I estimate that producing a pound of pork generates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; a pound of chicken generates 1.1 pounds of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. And the economically efficient CAFO system, though certainly not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions, is far better than most: the FAO data I noted earlier imply that the world average emissions from producing a pound of beef are several times the CAFO amount.
Solutions?
What can be done? Improving waste management and farming practices would certainly reduce the "carbon footprint" of beef production. Methane-capturing systems, for instance, can put cows' waste to use in generating electricity. But those systems remain too costly to be commercially viable.
Individuals, too, can reduce the effects of food production on planetary climate. To some degree, after all, our diets are a choice. By choosing more wisely, we can make a difference. Eating locally produced food, for instance, can reduce the need for transport though food inefficiently shipped in small batches on trucks from nearby farms can turn out to save surprisingly little in greenhouse emissions. And in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, people could eat less meat, particularly beef.
The graphics on the following pages quantify the links between beef production and greenhouse gases in sobering detail. The take-home lesson is clear: we ought to give careful thought to diet and its consequences for the planet if we are serious about limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "The Greenhouse Hamburger".
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
歐洲議會支持減少生產肉食，降低溫室氣體
http://suprememastertelevision.com/tw/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_tw&wr_id=709&goto_url=&sca=sos_3&sst=&sod=&url=link2_0&#v
歐洲議會（European Parliament）氣候委員會，日前會商溫室氣體（greenhouse gas）減排目標時，正式承認牲畜會造成全球暖化（global warming），並建議複審畜牧業補助金發放，減少排放甲烷（methane）。
揚斯．荷姆：「你所能做的最有影響力的事，就是減少肉食，或完全停止吃肉，你能夠讓作物有剩餘，用來餵飽今日飢餓的人。」
揚斯．荷姆：「我希望未來的孩童所住的世界，能與自然和諧一致，與動物和諧相處，我們不繁殖動物，不運送動物，當然也不殺害動物。」
讚頌並感謝歐洲議會，和所有相關人士，致力讓肉品的成本如實反應在市場上，並鼓勵食用健康的植物性食品，拯救地球。清海無上師接受詹姆士‧賓恩（James Bean）主持的「靈性覺醒」（Spiritual Awakening）電台節目專訪時詳述，飲食不含動物成分，對遏止氣候變遷（climate change）的助益。
清海無上師：「為了救自己，我們一定要吃素，素食是非暴力的最高表現，也是把愛付諸行動，你認為是嗎？」
詹姆士賓恩：「是，如果你愛動物，為何要吃他們？」
清海無上師：「對，而且素食能遏止80%的全球暖化，終止殘酷，從餐盤做起，為世界帶來慈愛的能量，不再有缺水和水汙染，不再有糧荒、飢荒、戰爭與致命的疾病，省下很多稅金和醫療費用，讓世界更好，有更多有用的新發明，幫助好的組織。」
http://www.jensholm.se/2008/12/02/climate-committee-reduce-meat-consumption
http://www.nutritionecology.org/news/personalities.html
http://www.nutritionecology.org/news/stop_subsidies.html
http://www.jensholm.se/2008/12/02/minskad-kottkonsumtion-i-klimatresolution
歐洲議會（European Parliament）氣候委員會，日前會商溫室氣體（greenhouse gas）減排目標時，正式承認牲畜會造成全球暖化（global warming），並建議複審畜牧業補助金發放，減少排放甲烷（methane）。
揚斯．荷姆：「你所能做的最有影響力的事，就是減少肉食，或完全停止吃肉，你能夠讓作物有剩餘，用來餵飽今日飢餓的人。」
揚斯．荷姆：「我希望未來的孩童所住的世界，能與自然和諧一致，與動物和諧相處，我們不繁殖動物，不運送動物，當然也不殺害動物。」
讚頌並感謝歐洲議會，和所有相關人士，致力讓肉品的成本如實反應在市場上，並鼓勵食用健康的植物性食品，拯救地球。清海無上師接受詹姆士‧賓恩（James Bean）主持的「靈性覺醒」（Spiritual Awakening）電台節目專訪時詳述，飲食不含動物成分，對遏止氣候變遷（climate change）的助益。
清海無上師：「為了救自己，我們一定要吃素，素食是非暴力的最高表現，也是把愛付諸行動，你認為是嗎？」
詹姆士賓恩：「是，如果你愛動物，為何要吃他們？」
清海無上師：「對，而且素食能遏止80%的全球暖化，終止殘酷，從餐盤做起，為世界帶來慈愛的能量，不再有缺水和水汙染，不再有糧荒、飢荒、戰爭與致命的疾病，省下很多稅金和醫療費用，讓世界更好，有更多有用的新發明，幫助好的組織。」
http://www.jensholm.se/2008/12/02/climate-committee-reduce-meat-consumption
http://www.nutritionecology.org/news/personalities.html
http://www.nutritionecology.org/news/stop_subsidies.html
http://www.jensholm.se/2008/12/02/minskad-kottkonsumtion-i-klimatresolution
2009/1/24
2009/1/23
全球暖化 南極冰棚消失速度驚人
更新日期:2009/01/23 17:16
受到全球暖化的影響，南極的冰棚正在迅速融解消失當中，科學家鎖定其中的威爾金斯冰棚發現，這個冰棚在過去10年間，面積已經縮小了 30%。速度十分驚人。
全球暖化到底對地球環境造成什麼衝擊?看看南極冰層融化的程度就知道。冰河專家搭乘直昇機來到威爾金斯冰棚，在冰層最薄的地方安裝衛星定位監測器，要紀錄冰棚崩解的過程。
這處冰棚在五十年前， 有100公里寬，40公里長，去年二月間， 發生了大崩塌，13800平方公里的面積， 在短短一個月內，就消失了415平方公里， 估計過去十年間， 面積大約縮小了1/3。
科學家說， 目前很難預測這個冰棚何時會消失，不過最後階段的崩解， 很有可能南極在這個夏天 就會發生，而最新的研究數據也顯示，南極在過去半個世紀以來，每十年溫度就上升攝氏0.12度，目前已經有其他九個冰棚在同步崩解當中，如果整個南極半島的冰層融解，將使全球海平面上升57公尺，後果將不堪設想。
受到全球暖化的影響，南極的冰棚正在迅速融解消失當中，科學家鎖定其中的威爾金斯冰棚發現，這個冰棚在過去10年間，面積已經縮小了 30%。速度十分驚人。
全球暖化到底對地球環境造成什麼衝擊?看看南極冰層融化的程度就知道。冰河專家搭乘直昇機來到威爾金斯冰棚，在冰層最薄的地方安裝衛星定位監測器，要紀錄冰棚崩解的過程。
這處冰棚在五十年前， 有100公里寬，40公里長，去年二月間， 發生了大崩塌，13800平方公里的面積， 在短短一個月內，就消失了415平方公里， 估計過去十年間， 面積大約縮小了1/3。
科學家說， 目前很難預測這個冰棚何時會消失，不過最後階段的崩解， 很有可能南極在這個夏天 就會發生，而最新的研究數據也顯示，南極在過去半個世紀以來，每十年溫度就上升攝氏0.12度，目前已經有其他九個冰棚在同步崩解當中，如果整個南極半島的冰層融解，將使全球海平面上升57公尺，後果將不堪設想。
南極冰棚迅速崩解 專家積極監測
更新日期:2009/01/22 22:15
受到全球暖化的影響,南極的冰棚正在快速融解,科學家鎖定其中的威爾金斯冰棚、發現它在過去10年間,面積已經縮小了 30%.速度相當驚人.
全球暖化到底對地球環境造成什麼衝擊,看看南極冰層融化的程度就知道,冰河專家搭乘直昇機來到威爾金斯冰棚,在冰層最薄的地方安裝衛星定位監測器,要紀錄冰棚崩解的過程.
這處冰棚在五十年前, 有100公里寬,40公里長,去年二月間, 發生了大崩塌,13800平方公里的面積, 在短短一個月內，就消失了415平方公里, 估計過去十年間, 面積大約縮小了1/3
科學家說, 目前很難預測這個冰棚何時會消失,不過最後階段的崩解, 很有可能在南極這個夏天, 就會發生,而最新的研究數據也顯示,南極在過去半個世紀以來,每十年溫度就上升攝氏0.12度,目前已經有其他九個冰棚在同步崩解當中,如果整個南極半島的冰層融解,將使全球海平面上升57公尺,後果將不堪設想.
受到全球暖化的影響,南極的冰棚正在快速融解,科學家鎖定其中的威爾金斯冰棚、發現它在過去10年間,面積已經縮小了 30%.速度相當驚人.
全球暖化到底對地球環境造成什麼衝擊,看看南極冰層融化的程度就知道,冰河專家搭乘直昇機來到威爾金斯冰棚,在冰層最薄的地方安裝衛星定位監測器,要紀錄冰棚崩解的過程.
這處冰棚在五十年前, 有100公里寬,40公里長,去年二月間, 發生了大崩塌,13800平方公里的面積, 在短短一個月內，就消失了415平方公里, 估計過去十年間, 面積大約縮小了1/3
科學家說, 目前很難預測這個冰棚何時會消失,不過最後階段的崩解, 很有可能在南極這個夏天, 就會發生,而最新的研究數據也顯示,南極在過去半個世紀以來,每十年溫度就上升攝氏0.12度,目前已經有其他九個冰棚在同步崩解當中,如果整個南極半島的冰層融解,將使全球海平面上升57公尺,後果將不堪設想.
南極洲大冰棚 08年12月開始崩塌
更新日期:2009/01/23 17:01
南極洲西部最大的威爾斯金冰棚去年12月28日開始崩塌，與陸地分離，成為冰封的南極大陸第10座漂浮在海面上的冰棚，而這一切顯然又是全球暖化惹的禍。
陸地和海面間的浮動冰體，也就是所謂的冰棚，竟然融到只剩幾百公尺寬，原本應該與陸地相連的厚重浮動冰體，現在看起來比較像一片薄薄的霧面玻璃。
這個冰棚在50多年前還有100公里寬，面積1萬6000平方公里，現在竟然只剩百公尺寬，專家預估，不出幾個月，這個冰棚就會消失殆盡。
過去半世紀以來，南極已經有9座冰棚斷裂崩解，南極大陸損失2萬5000平方公里的冰棚，南極大陸的地貌也急速改變，溫室效應氣體衍生的地球暖化就是元兇。
位在南半球的澳洲，墨爾本南部郊區22日星期四早晨爆發嚴重野火災情，威脅數百戶民宅，消防隊出動90位打火弟兄、18輛消防車、還有3艘灑水飛機，才在中午時分控制住火勢。(民視新聞孫琬婷綜合報導)
南極洲西部最大的威爾斯金冰棚去年12月28日開始崩塌，與陸地分離，成為冰封的南極大陸第10座漂浮在海面上的冰棚，而這一切顯然又是全球暖化惹的禍。
陸地和海面間的浮動冰體，也就是所謂的冰棚，竟然融到只剩幾百公尺寬，原本應該與陸地相連的厚重浮動冰體，現在看起來比較像一片薄薄的霧面玻璃。
這個冰棚在50多年前還有100公里寬，面積1萬6000平方公里，現在竟然只剩百公尺寬，專家預估，不出幾個月，這個冰棚就會消失殆盡。
過去半世紀以來，南極已經有9座冰棚斷裂崩解，南極大陸損失2萬5000平方公里的冰棚，南極大陸的地貌也急速改變，溫室效應氣體衍生的地球暖化就是元兇。
位在南半球的澳洲，墨爾本南部郊區22日星期四早晨爆發嚴重野火災情，威脅數百戶民宅，消防隊出動90位打火弟兄、18輛消防車、還有3艘灑水飛機，才在中午時分控制住火勢。(民視新聞孫琬婷綜合報導)
2009/1/14
冷得太超過 也和地球暖化有關
更新日期:2009/01/14 03:04 江昭青
【記者江昭青報導】這兩天全台多數冷到不行，中央氣象局表示，今天清晨台中及嘉義最低溫只有五點四度，台北也只有六點四度，所幸這波寒流已近尾聲，明天起會緩慢回升；但今年初北半球都「酷」斃了，中研院地科所研究員汪中和表示，這仍與地球「暖化」有關，地球無法自然調節過度的熱能，就會把高緯度如北極的「冷」帶到低緯度地區，所以人們仍應好好愛護地球。
中央氣象局主任預報員陳維良表示，這波寒流從上周六開始發威，到今天清晨為止，全台除恆春地區，大概都是蠻冷的，尤其今年台中及嘉義在清晨五點左右，只有五點四度；台北同一時間也只有六點四度；而台北前一次發生「六點四度」低溫，是在2004年的一月24日。
但陳維良說，其實這波寒流大概走到今天，已是尾聲，明天起，民眾會覺得「稍微好一點」，但氣溫真正有較大的提升，則約要到17日以後。他也說，這兩天的低溫可能還是在10度上下，民眾仍要做好保暖工作。
其實北半球很多國家，今年一月也是超冷，資料顯示，大陸貴州都下雪、歐洲靠地中海蔚藍海岸的馬賽也大雪紛飛。
汪中和說，大家都知道地球已有暖化問題，主因是人們製造了太多的「熱能」給地球；以前平均約1000年、地球才會增溫一度，目前是每隔100年，地球上氣溫就增加一度，「增溫速度超過10倍」。而地球本來可以自然調節熱能，但如今增溫速度太快，地球只好過度反應，因此夏天會特別熱、冬天會特別冷。
他舉例，熱能有正、負兩種，地球熱能太多時，它也會把高緯度的「冷」帶到低緯度地區，這就會讓低緯度地區的冬天，覺得很冷。但汪中和表示，在地球暖化因素影響下，冬季與夏季氣溫都會變得特別極端，但夏天會更長、冬天會較短。
至於台灣這幾天冷得讓人難受，汪中和說，主因仍是西伯利亞冷高壓下來，經大陸華北、華東到東海時，因地球自轉因素使氣流轉彎，形成我們所謂的東北季風，但東北季風目前的「高度」頂多只有2000公尺，因此碰到中央山脈後會有些阻擋作用，中央山脈「擋不到」的東北部地區民眾，感受最深。
【記者江昭青報導】這兩天全台多數冷到不行，中央氣象局表示，今天清晨台中及嘉義最低溫只有五點四度，台北也只有六點四度，所幸這波寒流已近尾聲，明天起會緩慢回升；但今年初北半球都「酷」斃了，中研院地科所研究員汪中和表示，這仍與地球「暖化」有關，地球無法自然調節過度的熱能，就會把高緯度如北極的「冷」帶到低緯度地區，所以人們仍應好好愛護地球。
中央氣象局主任預報員陳維良表示，這波寒流從上周六開始發威，到今天清晨為止，全台除恆春地區，大概都是蠻冷的，尤其今年台中及嘉義在清晨五點左右，只有五點四度；台北同一時間也只有六點四度；而台北前一次發生「六點四度」低溫，是在2004年的一月24日。
但陳維良說，其實這波寒流大概走到今天，已是尾聲，明天起，民眾會覺得「稍微好一點」，但氣溫真正有較大的提升，則約要到17日以後。他也說，這兩天的低溫可能還是在10度上下，民眾仍要做好保暖工作。
其實北半球很多國家，今年一月也是超冷，資料顯示，大陸貴州都下雪、歐洲靠地中海蔚藍海岸的馬賽也大雪紛飛。
汪中和說，大家都知道地球已有暖化問題，主因是人們製造了太多的「熱能」給地球；以前平均約1000年、地球才會增溫一度，目前是每隔100年，地球上氣溫就增加一度，「增溫速度超過10倍」。而地球本來可以自然調節熱能，但如今增溫速度太快，地球只好過度反應，因此夏天會特別熱、冬天會特別冷。
他舉例，熱能有正、負兩種，地球熱能太多時，它也會把高緯度的「冷」帶到低緯度地區，這就會讓低緯度地區的冬天，覺得很冷。但汪中和表示，在地球暖化因素影響下，冬季與夏季氣溫都會變得特別極端，但夏天會更長、冬天會較短。
至於台灣這幾天冷得讓人難受，汪中和說，主因仍是西伯利亞冷高壓下來，經大陸華北、華東到東海時，因地球自轉因素使氣流轉彎，形成我們所謂的東北季風，但東北季風目前的「高度」頂多只有2000公尺，因此碰到中央山脈後會有些阻擋作用，中央山脈「擋不到」的東北部地區民眾，感受最深。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)