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
And if you use that energy, you change the climate dude! LOL -- no different than wind power or solar. Just sayin and one example for ya.
MIT analysis suggests generating electricity from large-scale wind farms could influence climate %u2014 and not necessarily in the desired way.
and the paper if you care to read it ;)
Link
Tunnels eh?
Out >>>> Have a good weekend all >
Understand, the use of stored vs. real time energy, can make a big difference, and more than you may think.
All I was claiming was that the earth is warming, and that humans are contributing. That's all. That is all I ever try to persuade people of. Then I said to Miller that all climate scientists believe the earth is warming, except maybe a handfull.
I probably miscalculated a bit, there's probably a bit more like <5% population of climate scientists who actually believe the earth is cooling, or not changing at all. But that number is still ridiculously low.
Correct and computer modeling will show we can change the climate back to pre-industrial revolution temperatures if we need to. We have the capability to regulate climate to use in our favor.
Good luck I am glad someone is so smart here.
If insisting that the dialog here stick to science is part of a "left-wing socialist agenda", then I am indeed a left-wing socialist with an agenda. And proudly so.
Oh, yes. In case you missed it, the Three Unassailable Tenets of the Theory of AGW:
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.
(As for the rest of your nonsensical comment, I'll ignore it. As always.)
But that's the thing; this site has no respectable and knowledgeable skeptics. No, here all you'll see is the same tired, rehashed, oft-debunked, anti-scientific, pro-pollution gibberish repeated with decreasing conviction and increasing frustration by the same small group of Fox-obsessed denialists.
The thing is, a true scientific skeptic has doubts, but can be convinced when confronted by data. Denialists, on the other hand, have their minds made up, and absolutely no amount of data will ever convince them to change their minds.
What is with all of the unsubstantiated posts claiming that Bastardi was fired? Both Bastardi and Accuweather claim that he left voluntarily, and I have never seen any claim by anyone who would be in a position to know that it isn't true. It's certainly not impossible that he was fired, but I think unless a link to information that can back those claims up, it's rather dishonest to state such claims as if they were fact.
Concerning Dr.Gray not being a climatologist...Where exactly did Dr.Mann get his climatology degree again? Of course I'm being facetious but seriously, "climatologist" has been used to describe a lot of people whose field of study is related to climate. I think any atmospheric scientist can certainly be considered a climatologist and I feel that Dr.Gray's knowledge in that area would compare very favorably to Dr.Mann's. Of course opinions may vary, of course.
* * *
№ 87
One millimetre over six years doesn't sound like very much at all--about 10% of the total, right? I suppose "major player" is kind of a subjective designation, though.
If so it is one millimeter over six years that was left out of the total sum of the formula.What else are we forgetting?
"In the end, that's all that matters in the debate."
Really? I breath out CO2 and therefore I contribute to global warming and that is all that matters to sustain the debate? Does it matter to what extent mankind contributes? Does it matter if anything we can do will make a difference? Does it matter if say 97% of the warming would happen with or without the existence of humans on the planet? Does it matter if it doesn't matter? What if a warming world is better than a cooling or static world?
Your statement is truly foolish.
Ah, with just one single sentence of your comment, you've invalidated your argument. You wrote: "What is absolutely ludicrous is the fact that the greens and the UN want to make us believe that, through mathematical computations, they can predict climate change 30, 40 or 50 years from now, when, with today's technology, it's not possible to reliably produce weather forecasts for more than 4 or 5 days." That is a very clear signal that you either completely misunderstand or are woefully ignorant of the huge difference between climate and weather, and that in turn upends and renders pointless your entire comment.
As a bonus--so to speak--you wrote the following: "There is lots of scientific data, published by highly respected scientists, which proves that climate on planet earth is conditioned by solar activity and by natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, which every year emit into the atmosphere millions of tons of ash and billions of cubic metres of gas." That's a very typical denialist commment that has no basis in fact or reality. The term "lots" doesn't mean much. After all, there are also "lots" of literature about fairies and pixies and elves and vampires and unicorns...but the scientific literature to support those creatures is completely nonexistent. IOW, you need to use specifics: names, dates, publications, titles...
Bottom line--again--are these Three Unassailable Tenets of the Theory of AGW:
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.
Until and unless someone can scientifically prove otherwise, the theory stands.
Your ideas, are still debated. The degree to which we are responsible for the warming is still debated. The future effects of a warmer climate are still debated.
All those thing you bring up are very good points, but at this point not understood very well or backed by a significant amount of scientific evidence. The two concepts I mention are not still debated, and are supported by a wealth of evidence while refuted by none. That is why I said it is of most importance that people simply understand that the earth has been warming and we are contributing...because they are irrefutable points, and should therefore be known by everyone. The rest of the points you bring up are not concrete yet.
So, my argument was not foolish at all.
Except, of course, when they truly and demonstrably are.
"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
How do you explain this away? How does this explain your assessment of empathy genes?I really don't care about your success as a software genius. What I know from reading the above is that you are an arrogant sh*t. But, don't worry, that is a typical trait of most liberal progressives.
Also, about your 20 to 1 positive ratings, chalk me up as making it 20 to 2.
btw, are you payed to post here?...not saying you are or aren't, just a curious question
392.40ppm
Current Data for Atmospheric CO2
The world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is from measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. These high-precision measurements were started by Dave Keeling in March 1958.
Today, the monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within a week after each month ends. The source data is organized into a table and republished here at CO2Now.org so more people can see the latest CO2 level and the important CO2 trend. The table includes the full Mauna Loa instrument record for atmospheric CO2.
Go Fla!
LoL
Nah. I received nearly a dozen more messages of support this afternoon, so the ratio stands. And like I said, I don't really care whether the pro-pollution, anti-science types dislike me. Trust me when I say that I sleep very well at night regardless of that seething hatred some may feel toward me.
As for the rest of your comment: Arthur C. Brooks is an ultra-conservative--he's the head of the pro-corporate American Enterprise Institute, for crying out loud--so is it any wonder that he would "find" that conservatives are more giving? But the fact of the matter is, conservatives attend church at a much higher frequency than do progressives, so the numbers are heavily skewed in their favor by tithes and offerings. When this money is taken out of the equation--which it should be, because it doesn't go to help people so much as it's used to support the church's overhead costs--the balance returns heavily to the progressive side. IOW, the money many conservatives give is money that's given as a church membership fee, and not necessarily for the caring of others outside the church. However, even including all the church membership "giving", progressives volunteer far more when time and goods are factored in.
(And, yes, it's true as you say that "conservative-headed families make slightly less money". That's a factor of education, of course; the more educated and knowledgable one is, and the more critical thinking skills one develops, the more likely he or she is to move away from the simplistic ideologies of conservatism. And. of course, higher education almost always brings with it a higher income.)
Alaska Dispatch Article...
Global Warming Signal #3,879.
Anyone should be able to understand how a sudden lack of protective ice can easily subject newly-exposed shorelines to wave action capable of causing severe erosion. It's like how a man who always wore long-sleeve garments would sunburn quickly and badly if he decided to spend a day or two at the beach while wearing no shirt.
So far as your nitrogen comment goes, you should know that climate science--like all good science--is ever evolving; new data = new conclusions. Now, I assume you're referring to the European Nitrogen Assessment (conducted by more than 200 scientists from 21 countries) that find that between 70% and 80% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, including nitrous oxide, come from the production and use of nitrogen fertilizers, which cause nitrogen pollution, which led them to conclude that that pollution poses an even greater threat to humankind than carbon does. After all, nitrous oxide, is 300 times more potent than CO2 so far as climate change is concerned. On top of that, nitrogen pollution isn't just an atmospheric problem; it goes everywhere. But this is all no huge surprise; dumping billions of tons of nitrogen- and phosphate-rich fertilizers all over the planet has long been thought A Genuinely Bad Idea.
The fact is, man's carelessness is killing the planet's life-support systems, and institutionalized corporate greed is subsidizing those murders. That's myopic, shortsighted, and plain stupid.
I can attest to the fact that chemotherapy saved my life and cured my cancer, without it I would have been dead in 6 months. Does that count?
This is another of those statements along the lines of "Earth isn't warming", and it's equally as baseless. Cancer death rates have been declining for many years due to a number of factors--just as the planet has been warming for a large number of years, and at an alarmingly rapid rate since 1970.
I implore you, as I implore everyone: please avoid hearsay and innuendo, and stick with the verifiable scientific evidence.
Published by Nick Sundt on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 13:34
Change in Latitude of Bird Center of Abundance, 1966–2005. This figure shows annual change in latitude of bird center of abundance for 305 widespread bird species in North America from 1966 to 2005. Each winter is represented by the year in which it began (for example, winter 2005–2006 is shown as 2005). The shaded band shows the likely range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used. [For more information on this indicator see "Bird Wintering," p 66-67 in Climate Change Indicators in the United States [PDF], April 2010]
All I have to say about that is thank GOD for doctors!
Brown Recluse Spider: Range Could Expand in N. America With Changing Climate
ScienceDaily (Apr. 23, 2011) — One of the most feared spiders in North America is the subject a new study that aims to predict its distribution and how that distribution may be affected by climate changes.When provoked, the spider, commonly known as the brown recluse (Loxosceles reclusa), injects powerful venom that can kill the tissues at the site of the bite. This can lead to a painful deep sore and occasional scarring.
But the wounds are not always easy to diagnose. Medical practitioners can confuse the bite with other serious conditions, including Lyme disease and various cancers. The distribution of the spider is poorly understood as well, and medical professionals routinely diagnose brown recluse bites outside of the areas where it is known to exist.
By better characterizing its distribution, and by examining potential new areas of distribution with future climate change scenarios, the medical community and the public can be more informed about this species, said study author Erin Saupe. Saupe is a graduate student in Geology and a Biodiversity Institute student.
To address the issue of brown recluse distribution, Saupe and other researchers used a predictive mapping technique called ecological niche modeling. They applied future climate change scenarios to the spider's known distribution in the Midwest and southern United States. The researchers concluded that the range may expand northward, potentially invading previously unaffected regions. Newly influenced areas may include parts of Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, South Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
"These results illustrate a potential negative consequence of climate change on humans and will aid medical professionals in proper bite identification and treatment, potentially reducing bite misdiagnoses," Saupe said.
The paper is published in the March 25 edition of the journal PLoS ONE. The research team included Saupe; Monica Papes, a Biodiversity Institute and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology alumna; Paul Selden, Director of the Paleontological Institute and Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology, Department of Geology; and Richard S. Vetter, University of California-Riverside
Link
Live Science Article...
Bottom line: Fox News makes you stupid.
Climategate? Again? Seriously? Five large-scale independent investigations have found no credible evidence of hanky-panky. Five. I wonder how many more would it take to make some emails stolen from a single university go away? I would guess there's no number less than infinity that would satisfy the My-Mind's-Made-Up-And-Scientific-Evidence-Doesn't- Matter crowd.
Climategate. Birtherism. Death panels. Evil unions. The most broken of broken records, and nary a spec of credibility behind any of it. sigh. Instead of dwelling in the oft-debunked, can denialists please try to honestly and scientifically refute any of the Three Unassailable Tenets of the Theory of AGW?
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.
Of course no one has been able to do so for one simple fact: it can't be done.
Viewing: 101 - 151
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index