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
I am quite certain that all the oceans surface area has a direct effect on atmospheric temperatures globally. La Ninas and El Ninos gradiants are obvioulsy becoming greater. Problem is we are doing nothing to stop it.
Yes, it's about the weather stupid.
I asked a friend of mine with a masters in statistical analysis what you could say about 30 years of climate data. as far as deviations from the mean etc. He said "not much."
Link
My, how objective your post was. Full of so many facts and figures that support your argument. You are such an intelligent person.
Oh, I'm sorry it wasn't anything quite so profound and "objective" as "Yes, it's about the weather stupid." ;-)
Look, the climatic facts are the climatic facts, and no amount of worship at the altar of JB and Anthony Watts can or will ever change them. The atmosphere is in great peril, and things are getting worse by the day while these two clowns continue to spread their anti-science, pro-pollution nonsense to the uneducated/undereducated masses. It's sad. It's short-sighted. It's selfish. And it is, in a word, dumb.
Yes, the whole world is dumb and full of denialists. See right here:
Gallop
How could this be with people who are as convincing as you are?
I wonder how one defines a denialist. I suppose if it is you or the rest of the alarmists, it is someone who disagrees with you. If it was me, I would say it was someone who discards all arguments that don't support his argument. It would be one who constantly attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with him. It would be one who attacks the arguer instead of the argument.
No, I would say the fact that so many Americans don't believe the planet is warming is a direct result of the billions of dollars spent by deeply-pocketed pro-pollution forces in a desperate attempt to mainatin their high-dollar, high-pollution status quo. Admittedly, they've done their job well, QED.
So, how does one define an AGW denialist? To me, it's someone who has ingested so much uninformed/misinformed data from non-science sources--a certain cable TV "news" channel, certain Big Energy-owned politicians, certain Big Energy-funded websites--that he or she is convinced that all scientists are either stupid or lying or both, and therefore refuses to budge one iota, refuses to entertain real science even for a second, refuses to even acknowledge the increasing signals of warming around him. Denialists pretty much walk around with their hands over their eyes and ears mumbling, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening".
That, my friend, is an AGW denialist.
Education is the answer. It always has been. And I am an educator, like me or not. ;-)
Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.
I couldn't go back and ready everything Neo says.
All he does is attack just like everybody else on his side.
Seems to be something they all do.
Why doesn't he just go back to the main blog and leave us alone.
Or does nobody want him there either.
PSAs were once required by the FCC as part of the price broadcasters paid for using the public airwaves. Nowadays they're not required, though many broadcasters and cable providers still use them to put out important messages and/or just to fill unsold ad space (listen to Michael Savage or Glenn Beck on the radio; local broadcasters can't sell the shows, so dozens of PSAs are often run during their shows).
Now, back in the days when broadcast cigarette advertising was allowed, there were many anti-smoking PSAs run. This is, obviously, because Big Tobacco's profoundly deep pockets were able to buy many thousands of hours of prime commercial time each year, and in doing so were able to convince a lot of politicians and civilians that smoking wasn't a problem, that it was about taste and style, that there were absolutely no connections between illnesses and smoking. Big Tobacco didn't need PSAs; they had all the air time they wanted. And as many anti-smoking PSAs as there were, cigarette smoking became more and more popular until science had finally had enough of the corporate lies and started shouting, "STOP!!!"
Sound familiar?
Now there are vast rivers of cash spouting from anti-science, pro-pollution forces, and some information outlets have taken that money and, in return, have drilled home the message that there is no warming, and that if there is it's not manmade. IOW, Big Energy doesn't need freebie PSAs; it has Fox, WUWT, the House majority, and others in its pockets. The fact that some broadcasters and cable providers still run science-based PSAs is a good thing, but until they get more vocal, their message is still being drowned out by Big Oil/Big Coal dollars.
Seems to me like an odd way to say we are causing the warming of the Earth.
How about all the other years this Earth has been around?
*crickets*
Yea that's what I thought.
WOW! I must admit I am surprised at how many misinformed citizens there are out there.
It's just too bad this does nothing for your argument. As Nea mentioned its a logical fallacy (saying the majority believe it making it true...remember 1000 years ago when nobody believed in a time before humans, atoms, continental drift, or even greenhouse gases?!).
Additionally if you did that poll on climate scientists (the ones who are informed) I'm sure the numbers would be much much different. Sure all you denialists would say its hidden agenda, but we all know that's not true.
The fact that we've only had accurate climate records for the last 30 pr 40 years does nothing to refute the fact that we are warming now. Nothing.
Still warming folks
You really didn't get the point of my post. It has nothing to do with the truth about global warming. It has everything to do with the accusation by alarmists that those who disagree must be denialists. A denialist is someone who faced with unquestionable facts refuses to accept reality. Such would be the case with the Holocaust. The whole world may be incorrect about their judgement about global warming, but the whole world is not a bunch of denialists. It is the mudslinging of zealot alarmists that accuses significant scientists, educators, climatologists and meteorologists as well as laymen of denialism that is the issue I was addressing.
With all the money global warming scientists have at their disposal, the support of crony capitalists hoping to make a buck selling windmills, the entire liberal media at their beckon call, don't you find it strange that so many people worldwide are questioning the voracity of the science and some even questioning the validity of the data and some who just don't believe any of it?
Now you or others here will talk about big oil or coal or lung cancer or some other hodge podge of BS to try to rationalize what has happened. You will never question what is most obvious or ask the question you should be asking every day. Could we be wrong?
I wasn't saying it is true just because a majority of people think that way.
That was you putting words in my mouth thanks!
Typical.
But in reality I was saying people are finally opening their eyes.
But thanks again for putting words in my mouth that I did not say!
I don't find it at all strange; as has been stated countless times, the amount of money the pro-pollution side has spent trying to get people to question the data is far more than has ever been spent on all previous anti-science propganda campaigns combined. Of course many of the uneducated and undereducated will fall prey to their lavish siren call; were that not so, they pro-pollution propagandists wouldn't be spending nearly so much.
Highly unlikely. In fact, it's so far out of the realm of possibility as to be, well, impossible. But I'll say this much: if we are wrong about the the causes and effects of GHG-driven AGW, the entire science world will have to be turned upside down to hunt for the other mysterious and totally unseen and unsuspected force that's causing all the things we're seeing: quickly melting sea ice. Rapidly vanishing glaciers. Rising oceans. Thermometers--on land, at sea, in space--showing unanimous warming. Extended heat waves, deeper and longer droughts, more frequent catastrophic flooding, increasing extreme weather events. Dying coral reefs. Ocean acidification. Earlier onset of spring. Later onset of winter. Quickly thawing permafrost. Forced migration of plant and animal species. The warming of the troposphere. The cooling of the stratosphere...
"Consistent with" is far short of "Evidence of". Impossible to rule natural variation based on the thirty years of observation, especially since some natural climate cycles such as the PDO and
AMONAO, which may have an effect on arctic ice extent, have cycles that are much longer than the observation period. I'm curious to see how the arctic ice responds during the next 10-20 years or so, given that we seem to be entering a period with a PDO that trends negative.№ 225
C'mon...That's only a couple of years of data. All of the cooling there is due to La Niña. Someone else could just as easily post a graph of 2008-2010 and claim warming of 40°/century...and it would be just as pointless. (If your post was meant as a joke, I'll retract my response...LOL.)
Edited: changed AMO to NAO
To both of you, I apologize if I offended either of you. All I was trying to say was that if either of those posts was written to imply that "because the majority doesn't believe in gw then gw itself is wrong," that you yourselves are wrong. If you intended otherwise, then ignore my post.
So neither of you two dispute the fact that the earth is warming and that humans are at least partially responsible? Is RMuller really the only one on the whole blog who doesn't believe we are warming?
Science dont care,,it just is.
But unfortunately for us all, things don't work that way. The planet is warming--rapidly--and all the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change that one iota.
Time to wake up, deniers. For your sake. For your kids' sake. For the planet's sake...
For the kids' sake is funny coming from you.
Rapidly?
Really?
How much do you consider rapid?
I said earlier I would post a link to historical arctic temperatures showing that there is a correlation with the PDO. I previously posted a graph of the PDO index over the last century; that can be compared to the graphs I'm posting and linking to below. Following is a graph of temperatures north of 70° N that purports to be from a paper Jones et al.
From here. (Scroll about one-quarter of the way down).
I couldn't find a graph to the original Jones et al data, and I'm sure some people will probably object to the link, but I have no reason thinks it's not accurate.
I'll back it up with another graph from a paper from Dr.Soon from 2005. This paper actually is discussing the plausibility of a link between solar irradiance and arctic temperatures, but I am merely linking to because it provides a graph of historical temperatures north of 62° N. It is in Figure 1 of the Soon paper linked here. It's within a PDF file and I'm too lazy to upload the image tonight, but there it is. It is not much different from the previous graph.
I do understand that like all arctic temperature measurements, the data is rather sparse. I'm sure it's even worse for measurements 60 years ago, but what measurements are available seem to hint at a correlation between the PDO and arctic temperatures. The next 20-30 years may be able to corroborate or contradict this assertion.
I doubt anyone is still on but...I'm out. Good night to anyone that is still up.
If "Science just is" then why don't we have debates
about the mass of H atom.
Debates occur when there is reasonable doubt about the methods used to come to a conclusion. So you can skip the name calling and blame game and be thankful
there are sceptics, for they are the reason science
improves everyday.
Science can be introduced to children well or poorly. If poorly, children can be turned away from science; they can develop a lifelong antipathy; they will be in a far worse condition than if they had never been introduced to science at all.
Issac Asimov
was a Russian-born American author and biochemist.
Scientific skepticism is a wonderful and completely useful and necessary thing; reasonable doubts about methodologies and conclusions are what keeps science honest. However, in my many years of dealing with CC/GW, I've personally come across very few if any actual skeptics; instead, I've seen an endless procession of people--driven by financial, political, or religious ideologies--steadfastly and resolutely refusing to be swayed by an amount of scientific fact or logic. These folks determined long ago that AGWT threatens their stock portfolio, or their political or religious beliefs, so they've either shut off all thought about the issue, or they've become vocal against it.
Those who honestly and openly use logical, rational analysis to critically interpret the data are skeptics, no matter what they conclude. But those who indulge in dishonest and disingenuous practices such as misrepresenting or distorting data, or using logical fallacies, etc., are absolutely not skeptics, regardless of those conclusions; they are, simply, deniers.
Skepticism is a rational, intellectual mode of inquiry, and is a very welcome part of science--or, for that matter, almost any other endeavor. OTOH, denialists are simply gullible folks willing to believe the most outrageous idiocies as long as in their mind those idiocies "refute" climate science. I suppose it helps them sleep better at night, but I really wish they would learn the difference.
Sigh...
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 — Blog Index