I got my AMS State of the Climate in 2008. I’m browsing through it now. I’ve come across a number of interesting results – mostly about the wide-ranging impacts the moderate La Nina had on the planet’s weather patterns and observations last year. With the La Nina over and a new El Nino continuing to intensify, 2009 and 2010 will hold interesting phenomena as well.
I plan on posting some tidbits about 2008 results and put them in context with how things have developed so far this year. Between sorting through the big report, work and a modeling class, I might not post as often or as much as I’d like. We’ll see what happens.
an increase of about 40 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide
a strengthening of the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt circulation
the release of heat stored in the ocean over thousands of years
Identified as the Bølling-Allerød period, about 14,500 years ago, it was a period of time when the climate system warmed suddenly (in climatological terms) and strongly. Critical steps along the way began with glacial melt. Once that stopped, the enormous subsurface heat that had accumulated for 3,000 years erupted like a volcano and popped out over decades. This huge heat flux melted the sea ice in the Arctic and warmed up Greenland. In terms that most of us can understand, global sea level rose by 16 feet and temperatures in Greenland soared by up to 27 degrees Fahrenheit over several hundred years. This points out that global warming events can occur quite rapidly and have devastating effects on the entire globe.
The findings were identified using simulations, which were conducted on the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), which is a collaborative effort based at NCAR.
What’s similar in today’s world? Well, the CO2 increase for starters. We’re increasing the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by 40 parts per million every 20 years – for the past 120 years. Today’s concentration is ~385ppm, whereas the average in the past 1000 years has been ~280ppm. The IPCC considered cases where CO2 concentrations by 2100 would range from 500ppm to 1000ppm. Even with aggressive action to reduce CO2 emissions, concentrations will rise for the remainder of this century. What will that do? How is that condition related to the other two factors that contributed to the last period of major global warming?
The oceans are undergoing expansion due to the addition of thermal energy. How long will the oceans be able to take up excess heat before re-releasing it into the atmosphere? That an important question that nobody has an answer to today.
Will the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt circulation strengthen? Or will we only face 2 out of 3 of the factors? These are all important questions that we shouldn’t be toying with in order to protect immoral corporate profits. I am not overstating the state of things when I say the fate of today’s societies and ecosystems hang in the balance.
A few news items dealing with the climate caught my eye recently. The first, which I subsequently did more investigation into, was a study conducted by a climate research group at NCAR. They ran a climate model in ensemble for two scenarios: a business-as-usual GHG emissions scenario and a emissions reduction scenario. The results confirm what most climatologists are saying: act now and reduce the worst effects of future climate change by a substantial margin. Warming was largely held in check in the mitigation scenario: 0.6C compared to 2.2C for the non-mitigation case. Sea level rise due only to thermal expansion is held to 14cm in the mitigation case (22cm in the non-mitigation case). This study didn’t consider melting poles or mid-latitude glaciers. Importantly, the warming wasn’t constant over the globe, something deniers have a hard time grasping. The poles would continue to experience the majority of the globe’s warming. A big lesson derived from this paper is the following: a 70% reduction in emissions results in virtually no cooling anywhere on the globe by the year 2100. In fact, similar studies indicate that warming is likely to be locked in for the next 1000 years. Forcing already in the system is likely to manifest as continued warming far into the future. The thing we’re in control of at this point is just how much warming we allow to occur. I’ll have a more in-depth look at this and other articles in a future post.
Researchers are warning that Western Africa could experience more severe droughts in the future. Along with other portions of the globe, including the southwestern U.S., future droughts in western Africa could become more severe and long-lasting, exacerbating otherwise normal drought conditions. Other research has indicated that multi-decadal to century-scale droughts could become more prevalent, affecting millions of people worldwide.
GRT plans to sell the purified CO2 to a range of buyers. Oil and natural gas companies are probably the biggest customers for the artificial trees. Petroleum companies pump CO2 underground to raise the pressure and force oil to the surface. Greenhouses could pump in extra C02 to help plants grow. Fizzy soda drinks and sanding auto parts also require concentrated CO2.
All of these customers currently get CO2 by truck or by pipeline, most of which originates in Texas. The advantage of the artificial trees is that they can be placed next to whatever factory needs CO2 without having to ship it in.
Another use for the artificial trees would be in the cap-and-trade carbon credit system. The idea is that companies that produce CO2 would pay another company, like GRT, to get rid of it. The most likely place to put the C02 is in the salt-lined caverns that once held oil, a process known as carbon sequestration.
This technology is more pie-in-the-sky than not. Nobody has any idea whether pumping CO2 (in any form) underground is a good long-term solution or not. Massive releases of CO2 by geologic activity (over the short- or long-term) would undo every bit of work done to collect the CO2 in the first place. If plants use “extra” CO2 to grow, how is it kept out of the carbon system? Decomposing plants re-release the absorbed CO2 back into the atmosphere. Soda drinks re-release their CO2 to the atmosphere. Sanding auto parts using CO2 re-releases CO2 back to the atmosphere. None of these ideas would reduce CO2 concentrations from the atmosphere in the long-term (perhaps the sequestration, but it’s still unproven).
Using in the cap-and-trade credit system sounds good. But again, what will GRT do to “get rid of it”? GRT needs to demonstrate a viable technology and business plan to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it for millenia. Has anyone seriously addressed responsibility for ensuring permanent storage? What happens if it leaks? Who is responsible? What will the potential penalties be?
Last, indigenous groups held a climate summit this week in Anchorage, Alaska. Groups around the world that are on the front lines of being affected by climate change met to create a plan and demand that countries around the world include indigenous people as they respond to climate change. They have a very valid point: they are some of the least responsible parties for forcing they climate, yet to date they are disproportionally suffering from its effects. Moreover, they have been largely left out of the climate change action debate. They have little influence individually to encourage larger, richer groups to pay attention to their needs. Erosion and rising sea levels are displacing entire communities and island populations today. They’re planning on presenting recommendations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009, designed to put forth post-Kyoto Protocol climate actions.
As Joseph Romm, the writer of the Grist article writes, the American public deserves to know what the latest science says about climate change. One paper I read recently about abrupt climate change warns us that once the climate system passes certain thresholds, climate change effects can take place over wide regions very quickly. Those effects won’t manifest slowly over the next 100 years. They could happen at any time, faster than anybody is currently prepared to respond to. I hope president Bush and his climate change denying buddies haven’t forced us into an untenable future. I hope President Obama and his climate change realist friends realize the dangers involved and respond appropriately.
The most recent American Geophysical Union conference ( late Dec. 2008 ) was a venue where numerous climate change study results were presented. I’ll post what I can – which is likely to be the more noteworthy results. One such result is the following:
For every degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average ocean surface temperature, the team observed a 45-percent increase in the frequency of the very high clouds. At the present rate of global warming of 0.13 degrees Celsius (0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, the team inferred the frequency of these storms can be expected to increase by six percent per decade.
Also on the increase has been annual global rainfall. Projected rainfall by the IPCC report’s “worst-case scenario” has already been surpassed by observations. That isn’t a knock on the value of the IPCC report – it is instead making the point that that worst-case scenario is underestimating the effects of climate change that have already occurred in recent years. It is the opposite of what most climate change deniers/delayers have criticized about the state of climate change research. While they waste time claiming scientists are purposefully and unnecessarily alarming the public about climate change, the reality is scientists and policy makers aren’t relaying the growing threat of climate change enough.
This especially makes a difference to policy makers. The 2009 U.S. Congress and President have the opportunity to aggressively address our climate forcing actions. If they falsely think climate change isn’t the threat the IPCC detailed, not only will future corrections prove more expensive than corrections taken today, those future corrections could be even more expensive than many were discussing in 2008. Every ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, every 0.1 degree Centigrade, every mm of sea level rise carries with it an associated cost. Aggressive action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions must begin today, not tomorrow.
Numerous organizations, including the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the Weather Coalition, among others, have issued a document designed to orient incoming congressional and presidential staff to the importance of weather and climate research and weather services to our national safety and well-being. In issuing the report, they appropriately point out that the nation is unprepared for climate change and any change in severe weather (more, less, when, or where). The next administration and the 111th Congress need more and better information. There is work to be done before more and better information can be made available to our elected officials (they have to want it in the first place, btw). With that in mind, the group has come up with summary recommendations in addition to a more detailed report. The following is on the website’s front page:
If we are to improve our nation’s resilience to severe weather and climate change, the next Administration and Congress must:
Observations. Fully fund the Earth observing system from satellite and ground-based instruments as recommended by the National Research Council.
Computing. Greatly increase the computer power available for weather and climate research, predictions, and related applications.
Research and Modeling. Support a broad fundamental and applied research program in Earth sciences and related fields to advance present understanding of weather and climate and their impacts on society.
Societal Relevance. Support education, training, and communication efforts to use the observations, models, and application tools for the maximum benefit of society.
Leadership and Management. Implement effective leadership, management, and evaluation approaches to ensure that these investments are done in the best interest of the nation.
Republicans have based too many of their policies without incorporating valid scientific information. The Bush administration has honed this practice to an art. A John McCain administration would deliberately follow in their misguided footsteps. A Barack Obama administration, on the other hand, would base their policies on a solid scientific foundation, as they have already demonstrated.
A conservative Colorado blog called for a 20% annual reduction in climate change research, citing waste and abuse. (I’m not going to link to said blog. I have no intention of driving up traffic to those who knowingly bury their heads in the sand.) The premise was based on a hypothetical acceptance that if the ‘science is in’, government funds shouldn’t be expended on additional computing resources, etc.
I don’t think conservatives would be well served by investigations into fraud and abuse of taxpayer monies. How many billions have gone completely missing by administration flunkies in Iraq? How many cost-plus contracts (that were no-bid, BTW) were signed by this administration, both in Iraq and in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina? How many illegal surveillance programs have been continued in secret by this administration, despite having their existence ended by acts of Congress? How many faith-based programs and abstinence programs have been paid for with taxpayer dollars, despite the evidence that they actually don’t improve public health?
To be clear: climate research hasn’t and doesn’t waste taxpayer money, especially not in the quantities described by this over-zealous blogger. I’ll accept this blogger’s call to reduce taxpayer funded climate research if they and other conservatives would likewise propose cutting Iraq funding, contracts with the likes of Halliburton, surveillance programs, faith-based initiatives or abstinence programs. But I know how likely that will be: there is zero chance of it ever occurring. So to all the delayers/denyers who will want to follow suit in calling for such a ridiculous cutback in our science research funding: spare me your fake rage. It’s not the money that bothers you, it’s your hatred of all things scientific.
*****
Update 4/7/08:
I just read a story that supports my contention that abstinence-only education doesn’t work: Florida Teens Believe Drinking Bleach Will Prevent HIV; Some Teens Also Believe Mountain Dew Will Stop Pregnancy. Further, Florida teens are under the ridiculous impression that smoking marijuana will prevent pregnancy.
Are Republicans serious when they say that these programs aren’t a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars? That climate research should be cut while these programs survive?
