DOCSLIB.ORG

LECTURE #23: Mega Disasters – Climate Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LECTURE #23: Mega Disasters – Climate Change GEOL 0820 Ramsey Natural Disasters Spring, 2021 LECTURE #23: Mega Disasters – Climate Change Date: 19 April 2021 I. Final Exam • same access as the mid-term exams using Canvas o I will send a reminder email to your Pitt email account over the weekend o the exam will “open” at the start of the assigned time period: Wednesday, April 28th at 2:00pm and close at 3:15pm • same format as the mid-term exams o except a little longer (~75 questions) nd o material: 2 half of hurricanes, flooding (plus the video), wildfires, mega- disasters o weeks 11 – 14 II. Early Earth • was more similar to present-day Venus than what we have today o very high amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and MUCH hotter temperatures Venus early Earth Earth today carbon dioxide (CO2) 96.5% 98% 0.04% nitrogen (N2) 3.4% 1.9% 78% oxygen (O2) ~ 0% ~ 0% 21% argon (Ar) 0.007% 0.1% 0.93% average temperature (°F) 872 550 61 * average pressure (bars) 92 60 1 * Earth would be at/below 32° F with no CO2 (more like Mars is now)! o so, where did all the CO2 go? . 80% is in rocks like limestone (CaCO3) and other organic material (oil/gas/coal) Plate Tectonics! . some dissolved into the oceans . some is in living plants (plants converted CO2 and produced O2) . other biologic uses of CO2 (bones, shells) III. Long Term Climate Change • Earth’s history shows large variations in climate o from the very early Earth with its large CO2 percentages o to much later in history . with extended periods of cooling/ice ages . to renewed periods of warming (e.g., time of the dinosaurs) Page 1/6 o so, how do we know all this? . we can examine changes in rock and fossil composition over time . for example: O2 isotope ratio in shells (think back to those early lectures!) 17 18 there are three isotopes of O2 (16O, O, O) - 16O is the most common evaporation from the oceans favors lighter isotopes therefore,16O and 17O get concentrated on land (as ice/snow) and 18O gets concentrated in the sea if the amount of 18O/16O is measured in shells, scientists know about the conditions of the water at the time they were formed - lower 18O meant warmer conditions - why do you think? o what are factors that lead to these changes? . Plate Tectonics if there is more continental land mass at the poles like Antarctica today - collects more snow - creates ice sheets leads to colder climates . N-S alignment of continents (like today) blocks the normal E-W flow of warm equatorial waters causes them to flow N or S (like the Gulf Stream) - leads to more evaporation and more snow and more cooling . external factors small changes in the Earth’s orbit changes in the sun’s energy output IV. CO2 and More Recent Climate Shifts • shorter term trends o melting of large ice masses on land and rising ocean temperatures . affect the ocean circulation patterns temperature over time Page 2/6 o El Niño / La Niña . cycles of warming and cooling in the Pacific Ocean . changes rainfall and temperature patterns in N. America and elsewhere example, increased hurricane formation and western wildfires in La Niña years o large volcanic eruptions (in more recent history) . particulates (ash and other gases) reflect incoming solar energy can cause years to decades of cooling o very large eruptions (in long-term Earth’s history) . causes extreme weather/climate/agricultural changes example: Toba super eruption 75,000 ago - reduced the total human population to < 10,000 people! • human influences (what we’re seeing now) o burning fossil fuels o land clearing (burning of vegetation) . adds ~ 6 gigatons of CO2 per year still a small influence compared to natural processes but could be enough to trigger more rapid changes (“tipping point”) th o 20 century . the rates of warming are faster than anything in geologic history . causes? changes in plate tectonics, Earth’s orbit, solar output? - no, all too slow no major volcanic eruptions therefore, change in the greenhouse gasses (us!) - most dramatic since 1977 . average of ~ 1° F (not noticeable to us) about ~ 40% of that due directly to man-made activities (emission of greenhouse gases) temperature change over the last 1000 years Page 3/6 temperature change over the last 140 years • what are greenhouse gases? o most common: . water vapor (H2O) . carbon dioxide (CO2) . methane (CH4) . nitrous oxide (N2O) . ozone (O3) . CFC’s o allow solar heat in but trap the radiant heat from the Earth from escaping . water vapor (H2O) responsible for ~ 75% of the greenhouse effect o commonly produce positive (sometimes leading to run-away) feedback loops . example, more warming more evaporation more H2O in the atmosphere more warming . another example, snow/ice cover: more warming less snow/ice less solar energy reflected & more absorbed by the ground more warming . CO2 receives the most attention (example, the Keeling curve) - small changes have a much larger impact - CO2 is the highest in the atmosphere in the past 800,000 years - only about 50% is removed by natural processes Keeling Curve Page 4/6 V. Next 100 years? • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) o 100’s of scientists meeting and reporting their findings on climate change o assess current models/predictions o report areas of uncertainty climate impacts and uncertainty (IPCC) o issue high-level findings, such as: . warming of climate is not in question . 90% of all warming since 1950 is due to human activity . all greenhouse gases are at their highest amount in the past 650,000 years . the probability that this is all from natural causes is < 5% . average world temperatures could rise from 1 to 6° F by 2100 > 60% chance of increased droughts, hurricanes, and extreme tides > 90% chance of more frequent heat waves and heavy rainfall a rise in sea level of between 7 – 23 inches levels now will continue to affect the climate for the next 1,000 years! estimated temperature rise by 2090 (relative to 1990) Page 5/6 VI. Mitigation Options? • changes in technology o carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy technologies for power plants, cars, etc. takes time (politics) o cap and trade . limit CO2 emissions through a market-based trading system . CO2 producers pay more for emissions credits . non-CO2 producers gain by selling credits o air scrubbing . possible but VERY expensive o fertilizing the oceans to grow algae (similar to massive tree planting) . they would take up CO2 . effects on the ocean’s biosphere unknown? o weathering of rocks . pulls CO2 out of atmosphere and makes carbonic acid . also very slow o geoengineering . inject large amounts of particles into the atmosphere to reflect solar energy similar to a volcanic eruption risks unknown? . carbon sequestration capturing CO2 and injecting it deep underground in a liquid form o all will take a long time and large cost to implement . unfortunately, this lowers the political will to act Page 6/6 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes
    Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future Lecture 4 – Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes, PhD 1. Start of Lecture Four (0:16) [ANNOUNCER:] From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute...The 2012 Holiday Lectures on Science. This year's lectures: "Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future," will be given by Dr. Andrew Knoll, Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University; Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; and Dr. Daniel Schrag, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. The fourth lecture is titled: Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? And now, a brief video to introduce our lecturer Dr. Naomi Oreskes. 2. Profile of Dr. Naomi Oreskes (1:14) [DR. ORESKES:] One thing that's really important for all people to understand is that the whole notion of certainty is mistaken, and it's something that climate skeptics and deniers and the opponents of evolution really exploit. Many of us think that scientific knowledge is certain, so therefore if someone comes along and points out the uncertainties in a certain scientific body of knowledge, we think that undermines the science, we think that means that there's a problem in the science, and so part of my message is to say that that view of science is incorrect, that the reality of science is that it's always uncertain because if we're actually doing research, it means that we're asking questions, and if we're asking questions, then by definition we're asking questions about things we don't already know about, so uncertainty is part of the lifeblood of science, it's something we need to embrace and realize it's a good thing, not a bad thing.
    [Show full text]
  • CO2, Hothouse and Snowball Earth
    CO2, Hothouse and Snowball Earth Gareth E. Roberts Department of Mathematics and Computer Science College of the Holy Cross Worcester, MA, USA Mathematical Models MATH 303 Fall 2018 November 12 and 14, 2018 Roberts (Holy Cross) CO2, Hothouse and Snowball Earth Mathematical Models 1 / 42 Lecture Outline The Greenhouse Effect The Keeling Curve and the Earth’s climate history Consequences of Global Warming The long- and short-term carbon cycles and silicate weathering The Snowball Earth hypothesis Roberts (Holy Cross) CO2, Hothouse and Snowball Earth Mathematical Models 2 / 42 Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science Frequently Asked Question 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect? The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it pos- wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ul- sible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil traviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensifi ed the natural energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is refl ected di- greenhouse effect, causing global warming. rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- common.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeling Curve: Result, Interpretation & Global Monitoring
    International Journal for Empirical Education and Research Keeling Curve: Result, Interpretation & Global Monitoring Augustyn Ostrowski Faculty of Geography & Geology Jagiellonian University Email: [email protected] (Author of Correspondence) Poland Abstract The Keeling Curve is a graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day. The curve is named for the scientist Charles David Keeling, who started the monitoring program and supervised it until his death in 2005. Keywords: Mauna Loa Measurements; Results and Interpretation; Global Monitoring; Ralph Keeling. ISSN Online: 2616-4833 ISSN Print: 2616-4817 35 1. Introduction Keeling's measurements showed the first significant evidence of rapidly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. According to Dr Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History of Science at Harvard University, the Keeling curve is one of the most important scientific works of the 20th century. Many scientists credit the Keeling curve with first bringing the world's attention to the current increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Prior to the 1950s, measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had been taken on an ad hoc basis at a variety of locations. In 1938, engineer and amateur meteorologist Guy Stewart Callendar compared datasets of atmospheric carbon dioxide from Kew in 1898-1901, which averaged 274 parts per million by volume (ppm), and from the eastern United States in 1936-1938, which averaged 310 ppmv, and concluded that carbon dioxide concentrations were rising due to anthropogenic emissions. However, Callendar's findings were not widely accepted by the scientific community due to the patchy nature of the measurements.
    [Show full text]
  • How I Stave Off Despair As a Climate Scientist So Much Warming, So Many Dire Effects, So Little Action — Dave Reay Reveals YVONNE COOPER/UNIV
    WORLD VIEW A personal take on events How I stave off despair as a climate scientist So much warming, so many dire effects, so little action — Dave Reay reveals YVONNE COOPER/UNIV. EDINBURGH COOPER/UNIV. YVONNE how dreams of soggy soil and seaweed keep him going. here’s a curve that is quietly plotting our performance as a behind my eyelids, that’s what helps me sleep. species. This curve is not a commodity price or a technology That, and a personal plot to pull a lifetime’s worth of carbon out of index. It has no agenda or steering committee. It is the Keeling the atmosphere. Tcurve. It is painfully consistent in its trajectory and brutally honest in The dream with which I’ve bored my family to distraction for the its graphical indictment of our society as one that stands ready to stand past 20 years is going truly ‘net zero’: paring down emissions to the by as islands submerge, cities burn and coasts flood. bare minimum, and then managing a chunk of land to try to sequester Established by Charles David Keeling in 1958, the curve records the remainder. how much carbon dioxide is in our atmosphere — fewer than 330 parts Last month, that dream came true. Years of saving, a large dollop per million then, more than 400 today. Each month for the past decade, of luck and an even larger loan made me and my wife the nervous my geeky addiction has been to scan the latest data. To search for some owners of 28 hectares of rough grassland and wild rocky shores in hint that ‘Stabilization Day’ will come: when global emissions and the west of Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • SI Traceability and Scales for Underpinning Atmospheric
    Metrologia PAPER Recent citations SI traceability and scales for underpinning - Amount of substance and the mole in the SI atmospheric monitoring of greenhouse gases Bernd Güttler et al - Advances in reference materials and To cite this article: Paul J Brewer et al 2018 Metrologia 55 S174 measurement techniques for greenhouse gas atmospheric observations Paul J Brewer et al - News from the BIPM laboratories—2018 Patrizia Tavella et al View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 205.156.36.134 on 08/07/2019 at 18:02 IOP Metrologia Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Metrologia Metrologia Metrologia 55 (2018) S174–SS181 https://doi.org/10.1088/1681-7575/aad830 55 SI traceability and scales for underpinning 2018 atmospheric monitoring of greenhouse © 2018 BIPM & IOP Publishing Ltd gases MTRGAU Paul J Brewer1,6 , Richard J C Brown1 , Oksana A Tarasova2, Brad Hall3, George C Rhoderick4 and Robert I Wielgosz5 S174 1 National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, United Kingdom 2 World Meteorological Organization, 7bis, avenue de la Paix, Case postale 2300, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland 3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 325 Broadway, Mail Stop R.GMD1, Boulder, CO 80305, United States of America P J Brewer et al 4 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS-8393 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8393, United States of America 5 Printed in the UK Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Pavillon de Breteuil, F-92312 Sèvres Cedex, France E-mail: [email protected] MET Received 21 June 2018, revised 2 August 2018 Accepted for publication 6 August 2018 10.1088/1681-7575/aad830 Published 7 September 2018 Abstract Paper Metrological traceability is the property of a measurement result whereby it can be related to a stated reference through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is Nature; This Is Un-Nature: Reading the Keeling Curve
    Joshua P. Howe Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/envhis/article-abstract/20/2/286/528915 by OUP site access user on 24 May 2019 This Is Nature; This Is Un-Nature: Reading the Keeling Curve Data images make odd cultural artifacts. On one hand, scientists pre- sent their data in images as a form of visual communication, intended, like other forms of visual culture, to convey both specific information and larger culturally coded messages. On the other hand, scientists typically hew to methods of measurement and math- ematical analysis intended to ensure that the data they present reflect some objective reality that transcends the cultural. To the extent that the data tell a cultural story, it is supposed to “speak for itself.” Such is the case with the Keeling Curve, the oscillating upward- sloping graph of measured atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) that has come to stand as one of the most important and powerful scien- tific symbols of anthropogenic climate change. To a lay reader, it may seem odd to read a simple measure of atmospheric gas through the many-sided prism of modern American life the way you might read a historical photograph or piece of art. And yet the Keeling Curve func- tions as much as a symbol in our collective cultural understanding of climate change as it does a representation of data about CO2. The Keeling Curve faithfully represents something quite real—the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958, expressed in parts per million (ppm)—but it is also a constructed image ripe for reading, similar to a painting, a photograph, a landscape, or a written document.
    [Show full text]
  • Denialism Deciphered
    and anthropogenic climate change (as well as second-hand smoke and the dangers of pest­ icides). We read of the tele­vision, radio and Internet ‘shock jocks’ who chase ratings by giving equal weight to The Madhouse Effect: How scientific consensus Climate Change and denialist rhetoric. Denial is The power of vested Threatening Our interests in US politics Planet, Destroying and implications for Our Politics, and state and federal action Driving Us Crazy MICHAEL E. MANN on climate change are AND TOM TOLES made abundantly clear, Columbia University with Mann an amiable, Press: 2016. if rather despairing, guide. He begins with an overview of the scien- tific method, the science of global warming and key uncertainties — such as feedback mechanisms, whereby warming can itself boost greenhouse-gas emissions and so CLIMATE SCIENCE cause even more warming. He and Toles then explore the “six stages of denial”, ranging from ‘it’s not happening’ through ‘it’s self- correcting’ to ‘geoengineering will fix it all’. Denialism Where this book shines is in its exploration of the debate in the United States, and a veri- table who’s who of denial. As the November presidential election looms, it’s useful to learn deciphered about key players’ stances. Unsurprisingly, most of the contenders for the Republican nomination when the book was finished back Dave Reay enjoys a wry history of US climate-science in July emerge as outspoken critics of climate obfuscation. science and international action. The party’s current candidate, Donald Trump, wants to renegotiate or leave the 2015 Paris climate s an iconic climate-change image, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- agreement joined by President Barack Obama ‘hockey-stick graph’ by geophysicist mate Change; and still elicits invective from in September, and has called climate change Michael Mann — showing global deniers (S.
    [Show full text]
  • The 5 Most Important Data Sets of Climate Science July 2008; Vostok Ice Core
    The 5 Most Important Data Sets of Climate Science Photo: S. Rahmstorf This presentation was prepared on the occasion of the Arctic Expedition for Climate Action, July 2008. Author: Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam. The selection of the 5 “most important” data sets is of course subjective. The 5 core data sets are supplemented by related information and animations. While I am not the source of any of those 5 data sets, any errors in this presentation should be entirely blamed on me. This presentation can be downloaded in pdf format from http://www.ozean- klima.de Note that for technical reasons the animation movies are not embedded; the links where these can be obtained are given in the notes. S. Rahmstorf: The 5 most important data sets of climate science July 2008; www.ozean-klima.de Vostok Ice Core S. Rahmstorf: The 5 most important data sets of climate science July 2008; www.ozean-klima.de Vostok Ice Core 2008 1959 290 2 CO 190 Temperature 400 300 200 100 0 Millennia before present (Source: IPCC / PIK) The ice core drilled in the 1970s-80s by a French-Russian team at Vostok station in Antarctica reveals the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (blue) and the temperature (at Vostok, red) for the past 400,000 years. Primarily we see the last four glacial cycles, each lasting about 100,000 years. These are caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit, as shown in the schematic on top. The Vostok data put the recent increase in CO2 concentration (purple) in perspective: never in the past 400,000 years (and very likely much longer) has the CO2 concentration been nearly as high as it is now.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change, Society Issues and Sustainable Agriculture Eric Lichtfouse
    Climate change, society issues and sustainable agriculture Eric Lichtfouse To cite this version: Eric Lichtfouse. Climate change, society issues and sustainable agriculture. Eric Lichtfouse. Cli- mate Change, Intercropping, Pest Control and Beneficial Microorganisms, Springer, pp.1-7, 2009, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 10.1007/978-90-481-2716-0_1. hal-00442610 HAL Id: hal-00442610 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00442610 Submitted on 21 Dec 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Revised version In: E. Lichtfouse (Ed.) Climate Change, Intercropping, Pest Control and Beneficial Microorganisms. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, Vol. 2. Springer, pp. 1-7. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2716-0_1 Climate change, society issues and sustainable agriculture Eric Lichtfouse INRA, Department of Environment and Agronomy, CMSE-PME, 17, rue Sully, 21000 Dijon, France. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Despite its prediction 100 years ago by scientists studying CO2, man-made climate change has been officially recognised only in 2007 by the Nobel prize committee. Climate changes since the industrial revolution have already deeply impacted ecosystems. I report major impacts of climate change on waters, terrestrial ecosystems, agriculture, and economy in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Carina Daniels [email protected] 510-847-1617
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 23, 2020 Contact: Carina Daniels [email protected] 510-847-1617 Finalists for 2020 Keeling Curve Prize announced during Earth Optimism Summit 20 world-class projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or promote carbon uptake are vying for ten $25,000 prizes Aspen, Colo. — Finalists for the 2020 Keeling Curve Prize include projects that turn carbon dioxide into stone, bring solar energy to rural Africa, help people get paid for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and invite people online to post messages about climate change to those they love living decades in the future. The 20 finalists, announced during the Smithsonian’s digital Earth Optimism Summit, were chosen from over 300 applications from all over the world. “We are thrilled to present this year’s finalists,” said Jacquelyn Francis, founder and director of the Keeling Curve Prize. “They have strong potential to curb global warming emissions and demonstrate that game-changing solutions to this crisis are well underway.” Every year, the Keeling Curve Prize awards $25,000 to 10 projects around the globe with significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase carbon uptake. The prize is named after scientist Charles David Keeling’s famous Keeling Curve, which has been showing an increase in carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere since 1958. “We aim to bend the Keeling Curve by identifying and supporting the world’s most promising global warming solutions projects,” said Francis. Four finalists were vetted by a team of research analysts and selected by the advisory council for each of this year’s five prize categories: ● Capture & Utilization ● Energy ● Transport & Mobility ● Finance ● Social & Cultural Pathways An international panel of judges from the private, public, and nonprofit sectors will select two winners in each category.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
    Carbon dioxide and global warming We have but one planet, and both the physical and economic processes that are driving climate change have enormous inertia. If a big ocean liner were steaming into dense fog in polar seas, only a fool would maintain full speed on the basis that the technicians were still discussing the distance to the first big iceberg [1]. There are several views about the Latest CO2 reading - July 07, 2018 current levels of CO2 in earth’s 409.31 PPM atmosphere and whether its apparently inexorable rise is the result of human activity. For over 50 years, in a series of measurements initiated by Charles Keeling, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been monitored on a daily basis and data is made available by way of a so- called Keeling curve (see Figure 1) [2]. A short video giving some historical background is also available [3]. One criticism of the data depicted in the Keeling Curve is that we might be experiencing ‘natural variation’ Figure 1 - CO2 levels as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii [2]. and that the rise in CO2 should not be a cause for concern. Indeed, there are some powerful voices who The ‘natural variation’ interpretation CO2 produced from fossil fuels and do not believe the evidence that is not supported by studies of CO2 industrial activity accounts for some links rises in carbon dioxide levels levels in ice-core samples as shown 65% of so-called greenhouse gases with a rise in global temperatures. in Figures 2-3 below. Data from (see Figure 4).
    [Show full text]