Planning for a Warmer World / Semester Summary
Planning for a Warmer World / Semester Summary
This is the last week of the winter term at the University of Michigan. We start just after New Year’s Day and march relentlessly to the end. It is the term when I teach my Climate Change Problem Solving. Class projects this term look at Adaptation Plans for Baltimore, Maryland; Institutional-scale Composting; Evaluations of Solar and Wind Energy in Chicago; and Understanding and Attribution of the 1930s Warm Period. Of course I got behind and Jeff Masters had to cover for me last week. (Thanks Jeff.)
Back at the end of December I was anticipating the semester with this blog. I was motivated to change the course by two syntheses of knowledge. The first was the National Academy of Sciences, Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. This report draws attention to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – as opposed to consideration of our emissions with the idea that the carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The basic message is that all of the carbon dioxide that we release from coal, oil and natural gas, will be around for many thousands of years. There are many important messages from this synthesis, but one of those messages is that to stabilize carbon dioxide at any level, we will have to reduce our emissions by more than 80% of current. So the total amount we accumulate depends on when we have the ability and the will to end our emissions – a decision that will be strongly influenced by how the climate impacts us.
The accumulation of carbon dioxide suggests several things to me. At the top of the list is that, given our population and our energy consumption, there is no way that we will avoid an average rise of the global surface temperature of 2 – 4 degrees centigrade. In some regions the temperature rise will be much greater, and the temperature increases in the Arctic will be systematically high. Since I always worry about important issues that have slid into the background, the other major issue that demands our carbon-dioxide attention is ocean acidification. The National Geographic has a good collection of information on ocean acidification. Here is the Executive Summary of the Stabilization Report.
The other synthesis of information that influenced my course this year is the collection of papers on preparing for an atmosphere with more than 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide and with temperatures that are beyond our notional two degree average that represents our arbitrary and comfortable threshold of dangerous. The papers in this issue deconstruct the idea that, at least for some, that two degrees of global average warming is not dangerous. A key issue that follows from the report is the importance of considering the rate of increase of warming.
One of more important risks associated with a warming planet is the rate at which the planet is warming. We are in the midst of a period of great species extinction and rapid warming stress the ability or the inability to adapt to rapid changes in temperature and water. Thinking about people and climate, population is increasing and our current rate of temperature increase largely coincides with maximizing climate stress and population stress at the same time. With this rapid warming to a 2-4 degrees surface increase, climate stress, especially water availability, rises to a level comparable to other sources of stress. This brings attention to managing the rate of warming while we develop the needed technology to manage carbon dioxide. Policy wise – we need to focus real resources on technologies such as batteries, carbon removal and sequestration, and a whole range of water and energy efficiency challenges.
Each year the students who come to my class bring a different knowledge of climate change to the class and different points-of-view about the challenges of climate change. One of the things I find most encouraging is the desire to move to problem solving, and the realization that the political arguments that seem to paralyze, at least, our national approach to climate change, is, in fact, political. I divine from their comments that they see the behavior of our elected officials as irrelevant and obstructing. That is introduction to geo-engineering.
There are arguments about geo-engineering. There remains this argument that if we allow ourselves to think about geo-engineering, then we will use this to allow ourselves to do nothing about climate change. What becomes more and more obvious, as we consider the accumulation of carbon dioxide, our population, and our imperatives for growth and economic success, is that we are engaged in geo-engineering without thinking about it. It’s like if we release the carbon dioxide and it mixes around the atmosphere, then we lose accountability and responsibility. It is self-evident that we do have to think about our carbon dioxide waste. Whether or not we choose to label it as such, we are currently engaged in unintelligent geo-engineering. There remains fear to use the word geo-engineering in climate research programs. It is imperative that we seriously think about management of the climate. If there is a notion of “sustainability” with 8, 9, or 10 billion people, then there is a notion of climate management. I mention an effort by some scientists GeoMIP. This is an effort promoted by scientists, with a wide range of opinions on the merits of geo-engineering, to promote quantitative understanding of geo-engineering. Similarly, we need to know much more about the impacts of ocean acidification; climate change is an easy problem compared with acidification.
I will be getting back into the climate change blogging saddle. In the next few weeks I have a few series that need to be revisited – validating models, the Sun, media, the EPA. Again thanks to Jeff for covering for me.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index
" All scientific evidence supports the idea that earth is warming and that humans are partially responsible."
What was that I learned over a half century ago about statements that begin with always or never. Oh yeah, such statements are usually false.
Almost all evidence points to a planet that has been warming for centuries. Almost no evidence ties that warming to human cause.
There is clear evidence that the extent of recent warming is questionable and that actual warming may fall in line with the steady increase seen over centuries not decades.
No one has determined whether or not human activities such as agriculture have reduced warming and partially offset human issues.
There are questions about heat island effect and locations of weather collection equipment that add more questions.
Almost no evidence. Almost. Too bad there is still plenty of evidence. Even if greenhouse gases didn't exist, we'd still be adding through the urban heat effect.
Data manipulation? Fine, don't trust any scientific data. Do your own research. Let me know when you find something that suggests otherwise.
More power grabs? Are you serious?
Green energy, clean energy, whatever you call it all suggest a break from oil companies. Oil companies have a bigger "power grip" than any other companies put together.
I really don't know why I argue with you. You literally have no clue what you are talking about.
I really don't know why I argue with you. You literally have no clue what you are talking about.
+ 1000
That handle is a fake and the imposter is most def. "El Loco"
oh, guess I haven't been around long enough to know who that is. At any rate I'm done with him
How many charts does that make it now that we must rescale now due to mans warming?
The report on which that article is based has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, pro-pollution forces have greatly outspent the anti-pollution side in an attempt to keep people ignorant of the scientific facts...which, based on your posts and the posts of some others here, certainly seems to have worked.
Thoroughly debunked by scientists (and had you followed the links you'd know that). Repeat after me:
The.
Report.
Is.
Fraudulent.
The fact of the matter is, the moneyed Right of course wants to hide the scientific truth, so there is a huge river of cash flowing in from Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas, and Big Nuclear in an attempt to obfuscate and confuse to stop a move away from those dirty energy sources. And that river is vastly larger and faster-flowing than anything the environmentalists could dream of. Only a biased person--like that reports' writer--would pretend otherwise.
Bottom line:
1) The planet is warming rapidly;
2) That warming is driven in large part (if not in whole) by increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs;
3) Those increasing GHGs are both from man's unimpeded burning of fossil fuels, and the positive feedback loops initiated by that burning.
I've yet to see a denialist come close to successfully arguing any of those three points from a scientific or logical perspective. Until and unless someone can do that, the theory of AGW is valid--no matter how many tens of millions of dollars the pollution mongers spend trying to say otherwise.
Real observations do not show any emerging trend between warmer global temperatures and droughts in Texas. For example...
From here.
The original image comes from here and you can change the image to graph different drought indices, different months, or even a longer term moving average. I tried a few and still was not able to find one with much of a trend; others are welcome to do some trials on their own, obviously.
Well, I doubt that any current computer model has the capability to predict with any skill the drought tendency of any particular region of the planet decades into the future. I'm not aware of any validation that has been done to show that any models currently in use have shown the ability to do so.
Our Big Oil Obfuscation Machine has served you well, young Master Luke. Your reliance on non-scientific "data" is heartening.
--Sincerely, the Koch Brothers.
Of those thousands of climate scientists, I guarantee you none of them will dispute the fact that the earth is warming, or that humans are contributing.
In the end, that's all that matters in the debate.
And from the looks of this blog, you are the one who is brainwashed...arguing against everybody else on the blog and against all scientific evidence. Sounds like you're out to lunch
Really soon.
So get your closing argument in order Mr R..or cat5,or whomever.
And here's one for da road.
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Maybe open your own Blog here and "enlighten the masses:,,as you havent made one single post that made any sense in a Month.
Au revoir'
Muah!!
Set Of Interviews Of Climate Scientists By Hans Von Storch
"This interview series will be continued, but is limited to people which deserve respect because of their remarkable scientific and personal integrity."
I'm sure, you're right, there probably are a few of them out there. However, the number must be pretty darn low.
However, for the most part, you are in your own world...no scientists (except maybe the random 1/100)support your thinking
1. I am a prime example
2. Nope, he runs from that of which is difficult. Handle dependent!
3. So do I Bro! Hence, why I am Gray'd out :)
Never Fear, the truth always comes out in the end.
Just look at the global temps from the Sat's. A warming world does not permit 3 months of below average temps. Just sayin~~~~~~~
Edit, here ya go.
Link
And I do hope you understand that I am talking about the number of climate scientists who understand the earth is warming.
This is NOT the number which believes the data is faulty, manipulated, invalid, or the number who believes that humans aren't primarily responsible.
These are two ENTIRELY different concepts. Last I checked, even you agreed the earth was warming...
Melting Ice on Arctic Islands a Major Player in Sea Level Rise
ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Melting glaciers and ice caps on Canadian Arctic islands play a much greater role in sea level rise than scientists previously thought, according to a new study led by a University of Michigan researcher.
The 550,000-square-mile Canadian Arctic Archipelago contains some 30,000 islands. Between 2004 and 2009, the region lost the equivalent of three-quarters of the water in Lake Erie, the study found. Warmer-than-usual temperatures in those years caused a rapid increase in the melting of glacier ice and snow, said Alex Gardner, a research fellow in the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences who led the project. The study is published online in Nature on April 20.
"This is a region that we previously didn't think was contributing much to sea level rise," Gardner said. "Now we realize that outside of Antarctica and Greenland, it was the largest contributor for the years 2007 through 2009. This area is highly sensitive and if temperatures continue to increase, we will see much more melting."
Ninety-nine percent of all the world's land ice is trapped in the massive ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Despite their size, they currently only account for about half of the land-ice being lost to oceans. This is partly because they are cold enough that ice only melts at their edges.
The other half of the ice melt adding to sea-level rise comes from smaller mountain glaciers and ice caps such as those in the Canadian Arctic, Alaska, and Patagonia. This study underscores the importance of these many smaller, often overlooked regions, Gardner said.
During the first three years of this study, from 2004 through 2006, the region lost an average of 7 cubic miles of water per year. That increased dramatically to 22 cubic miles of water -- roughly 24 trillion gallons -- per year during the latter part of the study. Over the entire six years, this added a total of 1 millimeter to the height of the world's oceans. While that might not sound like much, Gardner says that small amounts can make big differences.
In this study, a one-de
Link
I'd still estimate the number of actual climate scientists who understand that the earth is warming is greater than 99/100.
I did believe it was none, but RMiller has made me realize that there are in fact a small number of his kind.
Sure that's more than none, but it's still hardly anything.
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and
Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
Study Links Ozone Hole to Broader Climate Change
and this
Link
and finally this, as part of that, from Nature .....
Chemists poke holes in ozone theory
Remember, CFC's were the test run for C02 as many are aware ..... Gnight~~~~
And would you not agree that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists understand the earth is warming?
RMiller is probably right, there are a few, but I'd say more than 95% of climate scientists believe the earth is warming.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index