Thursday, February 01, 2007
Climate Change: "Many, Many Smoking Guns"
The fourth in a series of international reports, due out tomorrow, reflects better science and more-precise models.
By Peter Fairley
When the UN-organized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents its projections for global warming and future climate changes tomorrow, the report's hallmark will be a far greater level of certainty and precision than what was expressed in the last IPCC report, issued in 2001. "The certainty is huge," says Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada's top climate modeling expert and a coauthor of the new IPCC report.
To be sure, continued warming observed since 2001 is part of that certainty. But climatologists say the bigger factor is the broad accumulation of science over the past six years that has increased the precision with which climate models predict future climate change, debunked alternative hypotheses advanced by skeptics, and identified the footprint of man-made climate change in every corner of the earth.
As Weaver put it, the IPCC has not just found a smoking gun linking greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Rather, its fourth report delivers a smoking arsenal. "There are many, many smoking guns," he says. "It's a battalion of smoking intercontinental ballistic missiles."
Jerry Mahlman, a senior research associate at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, CO, and a peer reviewer for the IPCC, says that while the final language is still being hammered out, the report might end up expressing 99 percent certainty that greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, are warming Earth, up from "greater than 90 percent" confidence in the previous report. "It's very obvious that the earth is warming up exactly as we've projected it to do so," says Mahlman. One recent draft notes that IPCC's projection in 1990 that global average temperature would rise by between 0.15 and 0.3 °C per decade through 2005 compares well with the 0.2 °C increase that actually occurred.
Today, many detailed scientific reports are detecting global warming's fingerprints rather than simply glimpsing the outline of its footprint. The second and third IPCC assessments, issued in 1996 and 2001, respectively, built a case for man-made climate change on increased global average temperature above that expected from natural variability. Weaver says the fourth report, in contrast, will identify the signal of man-made climate change in every region of the globe and in many more variables beyond temperature, such as increases in intense tropical cyclones and forest fires.
"We're finding the signal of climate change in more and more places," says Stanley Solomon, a scientist with NCAR's Earth & Sun Systems Lab. For example, last year Solomon published the first definitive identification of man-made climate change in the thermosphere, the uppermost layer of Earth's atmosphere. The thermosphere was, paradoxically, predicted to cool and thin with increased carbon dioxide. And that is exactly what Solomon and his colleagues found. They detected the expected cooling by noting a small but statistically significant decline in the drag on satellites traveling through the thermosphere.
Comments
reneverheij on 02/01/2007 at 7:08 AM
1
A sound scientific argument. 'They have no money, so they must be wrong.' Does this gentleman understand the difference between science and politics?
lschuber on 02/01/2007 at 8:28 AM
13
tla723 on 02/01/2007 at 3:10 PM
20
lschuber on 02/02/2007 at 8:31 AM
13
Perhaps a few people will be inconvenienced, even killed, but we all die regardless, even if Aubrey is correct. It even seems likely many species will be inconvenienced, a few even driven to extinction, but again, we all do in the end. With a multibillion year track record, life has a 0.1% success rate so far. Why would we suppose it might improve? It is foolish to suppose it will worsen. As popularized in "Jurassic Park," life will find a way. The only certainty is change. The only hope for our posterity is technological improvement. The notion of reduction is certainly a "cure" that is worse than the purported disease.
aeroculus on 02/02/2007 at 8:58 AM
1
lschuber on 02/02/2007 at 9:36 AM
13
tla723 on 02/02/2007 at 10:11 AM
20
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 11:51 AM
25
tla723 on 02/01/2007 at 3:59 PM
20
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 11:53 AM
25
peter81 on 02/01/2007 at 8:08 AM
4
ggeorge on 02/01/2007 at 8:22 AM
4
tla723 on 02/01/2007 at 3:17 PM
20
peter81 on 02/01/2007 at 4:43 PM
4
Gurthang on 02/01/2007 at 11:26 PM
13
Well now that I think about it, there were some events in the fossil record that showed rapid global cilmate change has occured in the past without man to precipiate it.. but people don't like talk about them because to compare them to now would be fear mongering.
tla723 on 02/02/2007 at 10:06 AM
20
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 11:56 AM
25
axe3va on 02/01/2007 at 8:10 AM
1
Gurthang on 02/01/2007 at 2:50 PM
13
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 11:59 AM
25
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 8:34 AM
115
Won't we need a massive, planetary shift in the energy paradigm from harvesting buried stored solar energy / sequestered CO2 to harvesting sustainable bio-fuels that close the carbon cycle, potentially in addition to nuclear, geothermal, wind, tidal, water, .... ?
The fossil fuels industries, as we know them today, can quit worrying about / exploring / investing money looking for new buried deposits to harvest?
Aren't they the industries that have a tremendous vested interest in triple checking that they're truly the middlemen of the problem?
And, being put out of that business that they have so heavily invested in?
tla723 on 02/01/2007 at 4:33 PM
20
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 6:15 PM
115
Me?
The standard response of being accused.
Guilty or not.
What if, most unexpectedly, CO2 from existing practices is, somehow, NOT the culprit / solution?
Granted, such industries have an obvious self-preservation bias.
OTOH, if those industries ARE the root of a serious global problem, shutting them down is a tangible consequence demonstrating the magnitude of the changes necessary.
lschuber on 02/01/2007 at 8:56 AM
13
Given that CO2 absorbs at 15.5 µm and 4.3 µm, AND that the atmosphere is 100% opaque in these (and CO2's other bands), isn't CO2 already providing all of the global warming that it can? As CO2 continues to increase, isn't the only effect simply trapping that energy closer to the ground, and doesn't weather keep that air well stirred? I'm yet to be convinced CO2 increases increase the overall energy retention. Note in the figures of the link that H2O accounts for nearly all of the energy absorbed in the atmosphere. H2O accounts for more than 95% of the total greenhouse effect. CO2 is already doing all it can.
Further, consider: Chill a large bowl of water in a large open container. Allow sufficient time for the chilled water to equilibrate with the air. Now, simply seal the container to the atmosphere such that no gas can enter or leave the system (and turn off the chiller). What will happen as the water and container warm to ambient? The only change inside the container will be that the relative humidity will approach 100% AND the CO2 concentration in the air will increase as the solubility of CO2 in the warming water decreases. Given basic science we all learned in our sophomore classes, we know how equilibrium works. The only conclusion I can draw is that CO2 rises as a result of global warming. It is not a cause!
bmn on 02/22/2007 at 12:02 PM
25
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 8:58 AM
115
A forum that is open to all.
With no pre-conceived outcome.
That will genuinely accept all supporters and doubters.
Without fear, disrespect, intimidation or other pointless "flaming".
A forum that will attempt to address all of the pros and cons, one by one, to the n'th degree.
A forum where the proponents can further investigate, report and augment their arguments and the opponents, likewise, can offer their skeptical points for the proponents to address.
My hope would be for an eventual greater consensus, whatever it might be.
Little point in wasting trillions of dollars and years of time on "solutions" that don't, in the end, make for a successful and timely response.
For example, should Global Melting, for whatever reason, be unstoppable, at this point in time, and the seas are truly going to rise 20 or 200 or whatever feet, moving the world's coastal population (1/2 the Earth's population?) to higher ground, as one potential response, might be the wisest initial expenditure of time and efforts?
peter81 on 02/01/2007 at 10:06 AM
4
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 10:25 AM
115
I guess exactly my point.
Is there, somewhere, a more definitive answer to "how much" the seas might rise, if all of the ice (sequestered fresh water) that is not already supported by the seas (particularly the floating Arctic Ice Cap) were to melt? Greenland, the Antarctic and toss in various glaciers.
An answer that had undergone the slings and arrows of repeated review and conjecture?
A place where the speculation can, over time, settle down to one, or maybe a few, generally agreed upon scenarios?
tla723 on 02/01/2007 at 3:27 PM
20
Nomad on 04/20/2007 at 2:57 PM
2
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 6:32 PM
115
A very recent Technology Review article:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18102/
claimed 7 meters (~21 feet) sea rise if all of Greenland's ice melted and 65 meters (~200 feet) if all of the fresh water sequestered (ice) on Antarctica entered the seas.
How many years, at what "warm" temperature, will it take for "all" (or enough) of the ice to melt to make a real / measurable / discernible / demonstrable difference?
nekote on 02/01/2007 at 7:26 PM
115
No contribution from "ice sheet" melting was considered.
gdwilhite on 02/01/2007 at 3:13 PM
1
evidence to solidify support for serious public policy changes.
For example, one HUGE factor that gets almost no public attention is solar activity. Are there studies providing solid evidence that a solar activity cycle is or is not a major culprit?
catoosaflash on 02/01/2007 at 10:56 AM
10