DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Sensitivity: Uncertainties & Learning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Sensitivity: Uncertainties & Learning Climate Sensitivity: Uncertainties & Learning Workshop on GHG Stabilization Scenarios Tsukuba, Japan, 23 January 2004 Michael Schlesinger and Natasha Andronova Climate Research Group Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Introduction • Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x: The change in global-average near-surface temperature resulting from a doubling of the preindustrial carbon dioxide concentration. • If ∆T2x is small, then the problem of human-induced climate change may not be acute. If ∆T2x is large, then human-induced climate change may be one of the most severe problems of the 21st century. Outline • Primer on Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Estimates of Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Uncertainty in ∆T2x due to uncertainty in the radiative forcing • Causes of temperature changes from 1856 to present • Learning ∆T2x over time dH ()t ΔT() t = − + F() t dt λ • F(t): Radiative Forcing – The change in the net downward radiative flux at some level in the atmosphere, usually the tropopause, caused by some “external” factor, such as changed solar insolation or GHGs. • Instantaneous Radiative Forcing – Radiative forcing before any temperature changes. • Adjusted Radiative Forcing – Radiative forcing after temperatures above the tropopause change, with tropospheric temperatures held constant. dH ()t ΔT() t = − + F() t dt λ • dH(t)/dt – The change in heat storage of the climate system; on earth, essentially the heat taken up or lost by the ocean. • λ – Climate Sensitivity • Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity , λeq – F(t) = constant and sufficient time elapsed for dH/dt = 0. ∆T = ∆Teq. – λ = λeq = ∆Teq/F ; e.g., λeq = ∆T2x/F2x. 2 F2x = 3.71 W/m . ∆T2x taken as a synonym for λeq. ∆T2x Simulated By The UIUC Stratosphere/Troposphere General Circulation Model 3.5 3.5 3 3 WO PCHEM 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 W PCHEM 1.5 1 1 0.5 y = m1*(1-exp(-0.5*M0/m1)) y = m1*(1-exp(-0.5*M0/m1)) 0.5 Value Error Value Error m1 2.2227 0.01223 m1 2.3625 0.011291 0 Chisq 14.79 NA Chisq 23.68 NA 0 R2 0.82407 NA R2 0.76598 NA -0.5 -0.5 2xCO2 – 1xCO2 surface air temperature (°C) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (years) Outline • Primer on Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Estimates of Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Uncertainty in ∆T2x due to uncertainty in the radiative forcing • Causes of temperature changes from 1856 to present • Learning ∆T2x over time 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 Arrhenius Range-0.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 EBM Arrhenius Range-0.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 0.8 RCM 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 Range EBM Arrhenius -0.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 0.8 RCM 0.7 GCM 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 EBM Arrhenius Range-0.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 Paleo 0.8 RCM 0.7 0.6 GCM 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 Arrhenius Range-0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) • U.S. National Research Council study chaired by Jule Charney wrote: "We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C". • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change interpreted the findings of the Charney report to mean that 1.5°C ≤ ∆T2x ≤ 4.5°C. • We assert that this interpretation is incorrect and that the correct interpretation is that there is only a 50% likelihood that ∆T2x lies within 1.5° to 4.5°C. 1 0.9 Paleo 0.8 RCM 0.7 NRC 9779 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 GCM 0.1 0 Range Arrhenius -0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 Paleo 0.8 RCM 0.7 NRC 9779 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 GCM 0.1 0 IPCC Range Arrhenius -0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 "Expert" opinion NRC 7997 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 IPCC Range Arrhenius -0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 Expert Forest et al 0.8 Expert 0.7 Wigley & Raper Tol & de Vos 0.6 0.5 0.4 "Expert" 0.3 opinion Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 IPCC NRC 97 Range 79 Arrhenius -0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 Andronova & Schlesinger 0.8 0.7 0.6 Uniform 0.5 Uniform ForestForest et et al al GregoryGregory et et al al 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 Knutti et al 0.1 Knutti et al 0 IPCC NRC 79 Arrhenius Range-0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Cumulative distribution function 0.2 0.1 0 IPCC Arrhenius Range-0.1 EBM -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate sensitivity, ∆T2x (°C) Arrhenius (1896) GCM Expert Gregory et al. Knutti et al. EBM Paleo Uniform Forrest et al. Andronova & Schlesinger Tol & de Vos RCM IPCC Expert Forrest et al. Expert Wigley & Raper NRC 79 Outline • Primer on Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Estimates of Climate Sensitivity, ∆T2x • Uncertainty in ∆T2x due to uncertainty in the radiative forcing • Causes of temperature changes from 1856 to present • Learning ∆T2x over time Simple climate/ocean model λ ΔF ΔF oi Li λ Atmosphere k N Atmosphere β a . over Ocean over Land k S λ Na,o λ Sa,o λa , L βo Mixed Layer Interior Ocean Land Bottom Ocean σo , i σL , i λ ΔF ΔF oN oS λ NH Atmosphere βa SH Atmosphere over Ocean over Ocean λ Na,o λ Sa,o NH Mixed Layer SH Mixed Layer κ κ W βo W SH Polar Ocean NH Interior Ocean SH Interior Ocean κ κ W W NH Polar Ocean βo W κ κ W NH Bottom βo SH Bottom Ocean Ocean σo, N σo, S 2) Radiative Forcing 2.5 2 GHG Sulphate aerosol 1.5 Tropospheric ozone 1 Total anthropogenic Anthropogenic forcing0.5 (W/m 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 (A) 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2) 1 0 -1 -2 Volcanic forcing-3 (W/m -4 -5 -6 (B) 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2) 1369 1368 1367 Solar irradiance 1366 (W/m 1365 1364 LN (C) HS 1363 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year 0.6 (A) (NH+SH)/2 C o 0.4 Obs 0.2 Air 0 -0.2 -0.4 Temperature Departure, -0.6 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 0.6 (B) (NH–SH) C o 0.4 Obs 0.2 0 emperature Changes Observed Surface T -0.2 Temperature Departure, -0.4 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 Simulated Vs. Observed Surface Air Temperature Change 0.6 0.6 (A) (NH+SH)/2 (B) (NH–SH) C C o 0.4 o 0.4 Obs Obs 0.2 0.2 0 0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 Sim(GTAS) Temperature Departure, Sim(GTAS) Temperature Departure, -0.6 -0.4 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 0.4 (C) (NH+SH)/2 0.3 (D) NH–SH C) 0.3 C) o o 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 Res = Obs – Sim(GTAS) Obs – sim temperature ( Obs – sim temperature ( -0.3 Res = Obs – Sim(GTAS) -0.3 -0.4 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 1850 1880 1910 1940 1970 2000 Schlesinger & Ramankutty (1994) 100 0.08 IPCC 92 (1858-1992) N = 135, M = 40 0.06 0.04 ∧ 10 X 0.02 1 0 ∧ X -0.02 2 / Total Variance x 100 (%) 1 k λ Mode Time Series (°C) -0.04 -0.06 A -0.08 C Eigenvalues 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 Mode Year 0.3 0.4 0.3 ∧ ∧ X + X 0.2 1 2 0.2 C) ρ o 1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 -0.1 -0.1 ρ 2 -0.2 Eigenvectors (EOFs, -0.2 -0.3 IPCC Obs B Detrended Temperature Anomaly (°C) D -0.3 -0.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 i (years) Year Schlesinger & Ramankutty (1994) 180 120W 60W 0 60E 120E 180 90N 90N 60N 60N 1 5 2 3 5 30N 30N 4 0 8 10 0 7 6 11 30S 30S 9 9 60S 60S 90S 90S 180 120W 60W 0 60E 120E 180 ∆T2x Versus Radiative Forcing 5 4 3 (°C) 2x T IPCC Range ∆ 2 1 0 GT GTA GTAV1 GTAS GTASV1 GTASV2 Radiative forcing model Conclusion 1 • To reduce the uncertainty in climate sensitivity requires reducing the uncertainty in the radiative forcing, not only by aerosols, but also by the Sun and volcanoes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts And
    THE ROAD AFTER PARIS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY STRINGENCY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy in Public Policy By David P. Allen, B.A. Washington, DC April 12, 2016 Copyright 2016 by David P. Allen All Rights Reserved ii THE ROAD AFTER PARIS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY STRINGENCY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL David P. Allen, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Adam T. Thomas, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases (GHG) have exacerbated the effects of climate change and have led to intensified weather events and a steady rise in the average global temperature. Countries sought to outline an aggressive agenda for combatting climate change at the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris last year. In order to reach a common goal, countries released national action plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for reducing GHGs and CO2 emissions. However, a source of contention is the effect that limiting emissions might have on economic growth. In the context of the recently completed COP21, this paper examines the relationship between the stringency of climate policy implemented prior to 2015 and countries’ gross domestic product (GDP), as a proxy for economic growth. Because INDCs were only introduced in the lead up to COP 21, this paper instead uses the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) to measure the stringency of countries’ climate policies from 2010 through 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning and Climate Change
    Submitted to Climate Policy as a Commentary September 8, 2006 Learning and Climate Change Brian C. O’Neill,1,2 Paul Crutzen,3 Arnulf Grübler,1 Minh Ha Duong,4 Klaus Keller,5 Charles Kolstad,6 Jonathan Koomey,7 Andreas Lange,8 Michael Obersteiner,1 Michael Oppenheimer,9 William Pepper,10 Warren Sanderson,11 Michael Schlesinger,12 Nicolas Treich,13 Alistair Ulph,14 Mort Webster,15 Chris Wilson1 1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Tel: +43 2236 807 380, fax: +43 2236 71 313, e-mail:[email protected] 2 Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA 3 Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany 4 CIRED/CNRS, Paris, France 5 Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA 6 Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UC Santa Barbara, USA 7 Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA 8 AREC, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA 9 Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, New Jersey, USA 10 ICF Consulting, Virginia, USA 11 Department of Economics, SUNY Stony Brook, USA 12 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA 13 INRA, Toulouse, France 14 Manchester University, Manchester, United Kingdom 15 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA 1 Abstract Learning – i.e., the acquisition of new information that leads to changes in our assessment of uncertainty – plays a prominent role in the international climate policy debate. For example, the view that we should postpone actions until we know more continues to be influential. The latest work on learning and climate change includes new theoretical models, better informed simulations of how learning affects the optimal timing of emissions reductions, analyses of how new information could affect the prospects for reaching and maintaining political agreements and for adapting to climate change, and explorations of how learning could lead us astray rather than closer to the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Let Me Just Add That While the Piece in Newsweek Is Extremely Annoying
    From: Michael Oppenheimer To: Eric Steig; Stephen H Schneider Cc: Gabi Hegerl; Mark B Boslough; [email protected]; Thomas Crowley; Dr. Krishna AchutaRao; Myles Allen; Natalia Andronova; Tim C Atkinson; Rick Anthes; Caspar Ammann; David C. Bader; Tim Barnett; Eric Barron; Graham" "Bench; Pat Berge; George Boer; Celine J. W. Bonfils; James A." "Bono; James Boyle; Ray Bradley; Robin Bravender; Keith Briffa; Wolfgang Brueggemann; Lisa Butler; Ken Caldeira; Peter Caldwell; Dan Cayan; Peter U. Clark; Amy Clement; Nancy Cole; William Collins; Tina Conrad; Curtis Covey; birte dar; Davies Trevor Prof; Jay Davis; Tomas Diaz De La Rubia; Andrew Dessler; Michael" "Dettinger; Phil Duffy; Paul J." "Ehlenbach; Kerry Emanuel; James Estes; Veronika" "Eyring; David Fahey; Chris Field; Peter Foukal; Melissa Free; Julio Friedmann; Bill Fulkerson; Inez Fung; Jeff Garberson; PETER GENT; Nathan Gillett; peter gleckler; Bill Goldstein; Hal Graboske; Tom Guilderson; Leopold Haimberger; Alex Hall; James Hansen; harvey; Klaus Hasselmann; Susan Joy Hassol; Isaac Held; Bob Hirschfeld; Jeremy Hobbs; Dr. Elisabeth A. Holland; Greg Holland; Brian Hoskins; mhughes; James Hurrell; Ken Jackson; c jakob; Gardar Johannesson; Philip D. Jones; Helen Kang; Thomas R Karl; David Karoly; Jeffrey Kiehl; Steve Klein; Knutti Reto; John Lanzante; [email protected]; Ron Lehman; John lewis; Steven A. "Lloyd (GSFC-610.2)[R S INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC]"; Jane Long; Janice Lough; mann; [email protected]; Linda Mearns; carl mears; Jerry Meehl; Jerry Melillo; George Miller; Norman Miller; Art Mirin; John FB" "Mitchell; Phil Mote; Neville Nicholls; Gerald R. North; Astrid E.J. Ogilvie; Stephanie Ohshita; Tim Osborn; Stu" "Ostro; j palutikof; Joyce Penner; Thomas C Peterson; Tom Phillips; David Pierce; [email protected]; V.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY FORUM CLIMATE Bon Emissions to Global Economic Output) to 1.5% Per Year
    POLICY FORUM CLIMATE bon emissions to global economic output) to 1.5% per year. Calibrating the DICE-99 model to alter- To Hedge or Not Against native climate sensitivities that span the range displayed in the figure was more in- volved, because the DICE model includes a an Uncertain Climate Future? parameter that reflects the inverse thermal capacity of the atmospheric layer and the 1* 2 2 Gary Yohe, Natasha Andronova, Michael Schlesinger upper oceans. Larger climate sensitivities were associated with smaller inverse ca- t has been over a decade since Nordhaus and the damages associated with green- pacity values, so that the model could (1) published his seminal paper on miti- house gas–induced temperature change match observed temperature data when run Igation policy for climate change. His (4). We assume that decision-makers eval- in the historical past. The parameter was question was “To slow or not to slow?”; his uate the economic merits of implementing defined from optimization of the global answer was derived from a traditional cost- near-term global mitigation policies start- temperature departures calculated by DICE benefit approach. He found that a tax levied ing in 2005 that will be in force for 30 and calibrated against the observed depar- on fossil fuel in proportion to its carbon years. They know that they will be able to tures from Jones and Moberg (6) for the content, which would climb over time at “correct” their policy in 2035, and we as- prescribed range of the climate sensitivities Downloaded from o roughly the rate of interest, maximized sume that decisions will be informed by from 1.5° to 9 C (7).
    [Show full text]
  • Juliana, Et Al. V. United States of America, Et Al. Expert Report Of
    Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 1 of 129 Expert Report of Professor James L. Sweeney Submitted August 13, 2018 Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana; Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh M., through his Guardian Tamara Roske-Martinez; et al., Plaintiffs, v. The United States of America; Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON (Case No.: 6:15-cv-01517-TC) Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 338-4 Filed 08/24/18 Page 2 of 129 Contents I. Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 1 II. Background and Assignment .............................................................................................. 3 III. Summary of Opinions ......................................................................................................... 6 IV. Climate Change Is a Real, Global Problem ........................................................................ 9 A. Global Climate Change Resulting from Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................... 9 B. The U.S. Alone Cannot Ensure That Atmospheric CO2 Is No More Concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100....................................................................................................... 12 V. Energy Policy in the U.S. Requires Trade-Offs among Economic, Security, and Environmental Objectives ................................................................................................. 14 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Wesleyan Economics Working Papers, Wesleyan University, Department
    Wesleyan Economics Working Papers http://repec.wesleyan.edu/ No: 2005-009 Managing the Risks of Climate Thresholds: Uncertainties and Information Needs Klaus Keller, Gary Yohe, and Michael Schlesinger December 2005 Department of Economics Public Affairs Center 238 Church Street Middletown, CT 06459-007 Tel: (860) 685-2340 Fax: (860) 685-2301 http://www.wesleyan.edu/econ Managing the Risks of Climate Thresholds: Uncertainties and Information Needs An Editorial Essay Klaus Keller,*,¶ Gary Yohe‡ and Michael Schlesinger§ * Department of Geosciences, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802 ‡ Department of Economics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459 § Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL 6182 Running Head: Managing the risks of climate thresholds ¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] Revised and Resubmitted to Climatic Change 1 1. Introduction Human activities are driving atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations beyond levels experienced by previous civilizations. The uncertainty surrounding our understanding of the resulting climate change poses nontrivial challenges for the design and implementation of strategies to manage the associated risks. One challenge stems from the fact that the climate system can react abruptly and with only subtle warning signs before climate thresholds have been crossed (Stocker, 1999; Alley et al., 2003). Model predictions suggest that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions increase the likelihood of crossing these thresholds (Cubasch and Meehl, 2001, Yohe et al, 2006). Coping with deep uncertainty in our understanding of the mechanisms, locations and impacts of climate thresholds presents another challenge. Deep uncertainty presents itself when the relevant range of systems models and the associated probability functions for their parameterizations are unknown and/or when decision-makers strongly disagree on their formulations (Lempert, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-08-605 Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO May 2008 CLIMATE CHANGE Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to Address Climate Change GAO-08-605 May 2008 CLIMATE CHANGE Accountability Integrity Reliability Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options Highlights to Address Climate Change Highlights of GAO-08-605, a report to Congressional requesters. Why GAO Obtained Experts’ Opinions What the Experts Said Elevated levels of greenhouse All of the panelists agreed that the Congress should consider using a market- gases in the atmosphere and the based mechanism to establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 of resulting effects on the earth’s the 18 panelists recommended additional actions as part of a portfolio to climate could have significant address climate change, such as investment in research and development of environmental and economic low-emissions technologies. Experts differed on the initial stringency of the impacts in the United States and market-based mechanism, with 14 of the 18 panelists recommending an initial internationally. Potential impacts include rising sea levels and a shift price between less than $1 and $20 per ton of emissions. In addition, 14 of 18 in the intensity and frequency of panelists were at least moderately certain that the benefits of their floods and storms. Proposed recommended portfolio of actions would outweigh the costs. To establish a responses to climate change price on emissions, most of the panelists preferred either a tax on emissions include adapting to the possible or a hybrid policy that incorporates features of both a tax and a cap-and-trade impacts by planning and improving program.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning and Climate Change Brian C
    Learning and climate change Brian C. O’Neill, Paul Crutzen, Arnulf Grübler, Minh Ha-Duong, Klaus Keller, Charles Kolstad, Jonathan Koomey, Andreas Lange, Michael Obersteiner, Michael Oppenheimer, et al. To cite this version: Brian C. O’Neill, Paul Crutzen, Arnulf Grübler, Minh Ha-Duong, Klaus Keller, et al.. Learning and climate change. Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis, 2006, 6 (5), pp.1-6. halshs-00134718 HAL Id: halshs-00134718 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00134718 Submitted on 5 Mar 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. Submitted to Climate Policy as a Commentary September 8, 2006 Learning and Climate Change Brian C. O’Neill,1,2 Paul Crutzen,3 Arnulf Grübler,1 Minh Ha Duong,4 Klaus Keller,5 Charles Kolstad,6 Jonathan Koomey,7 Andreas Lange,8 Michael Obersteiner,1 Michael Oppenheimer,9 William Pepper,10 Warren Sanderson,11 Michael Schlesinger,12 Nicolas Treich,13 Alistair Ulph,14 Mort Webster,15 Chris Wilson1 1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Tel: +43 2236 807 380, fax:
    [Show full text]
  • Ron Stouffer and the IPCC Or How Ron Joined the IPCC and Saw the World
    Ron Stouffer and the IPCC or how Ron joined the IPCC and saw the world Gerald A. Meehl National Center for Atmospheric Research Biological and Energy Research Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program “The IPCC Assessment”: first lead author meeting was held at GFDL, March 1989 Prominent drivers were from the British Met Office (Sir John Houghton, John Mitchell, Goeff Jenkins). The intention was to inform U.S. scientists that this was happening, and to get people on board It was my first visit to GFDL, and the first time I met Ron. We were both early career scientists. We viewed this as more or less a nuisance activity since we had just completed the DOE State- of-the-Art reports assessing where we stood on understanding climate change It was decided that the second lead author meeting (to discuss a preliminary outline, form author teams, and start the first draft process) was to be held as a side event at the upcoming DOE Climate Change Workshop at U Mass in May 1989 The Met Office people then wanted a large lead author meeting in December to go over the first draft, and suggested we have it in the U.K. “I have friends who are doctors. I have friends who are lawyers. When they are asked to do something outside of their normal work, they charge for it and are paid for it. We’re being asked to do something outside our normal work, and we won’t get paid for it. The least we can do is to have this December meeting in a warm weather location.” --Michael Schlesinger U Mass DOE climate change workshop and IPCC organizational meeting, May 1989 IPCC lead author meeting, Brisbane, Australia, December, 1989 Ron was called upon to write about 1/3 or the transient climate change chapter, and to calm down Mike Schlesinger Larry Jerry Ron Dave Gates Meehl Stouffer Geoff Randall Jenkins Mike Schlesinger John Mitchell George Boer At the final lead author meeting in the U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing the Risks of Climate Thresholds: Uncertainties and Information Needs
    Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9114-6 EDITORIAL ESSAY Managing the risks of climate thresholds: uncertainties and information needs Klaus Keller · Gary Yohe · Michael Schlesinger Received: 9 September 2005 / Accepted: 8 March 2006 C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007 1 Introduction Human activities are driving atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations beyond levels ex- perienced by previous civilizations. The uncertainty surrounding our understanding of the resulting climate change poses nontrivial challenges for the design and implementation of strategies to manage the associated risks. One challenge stems from the fact that the cli- mate system can react abruptly and with only subtle warning signs before climate thresholds have been crossed (Stocker 1999; Alley et al. 2003). Model predictions suggest that an- thropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions increase the likelihood of crossing these thresholds (Cubasch and Meehl 2001; Yohe et al. 2006). Coping with deep uncertainty in our under- standing of the mechanisms, locations, and impacts of climate thresholds presents another challenge. Deep uncertainty presents itself when the relevant range of systems models and the associated probability density functions for their parameterizations are unknown and/or when decision-makers strongly disagree on their formulations (Lempert 2002). Further- more, the requirements for creating feasible observation and modeling systems that could deliver confident and timely prediction of impending threshold crossings are mostly un- known. These challenges put a new emphasis on the analysis, design, and implementation of Earth observation systems and strategies to manage the risks of potential climate threshold responses. K. Keller () Department of Geosciences, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802 e-mail: [email protected] G.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for Global Studies Policy Brief 1
    Center for Policy Global Studies Brief 1 No 1, May 2008 Some Hard Truths You Should Know About the About Global Warming Center for Global Studies The Center for Global Studies (CGS), the Michael E. Schlesinger, Climate Research Group, Professor of principalSummary academic arm of International Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana- Programs and Studies (IPS), is responsible Champaign, [email protected] for globalizing the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s research, teaching, and outreach programs. Since 2003, CGS has been designated as a National Resource If the Earth’s atmosphere did not contain water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2) Center (NRC) under the U.S. Department of and ozone, which make up less than 0.25% of its composition, the average sur- Education’s Title VI grant program. face temperature would be 0°F – so cold there would be no liquid water and, CGS has a four part mission. First, the thus, no life. The fact that the temperature is a life-supporting 60°F is due to Center promotes and supports innovative these seemingly minor greenhouse gases (GHG’s). On Venus the atmosphere research to define what globalization as a is all CO 2, the surface pressure is 90 times that on Earth, and the greenhouse contested notion is, to identify the multiple warming is 900°F, about twice as hot as your home oven can get! The natural and cumulative impacts of the powerful greenhouse effect is indisputable. forces driving this process, and to make this knowledge known to interested parties th Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in mid-18 century, human- around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Climate Impacts of Sulfate Aerosols
    Integrated Assessment 2: 111–122, 2001. 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The climate impacts of sulfate aerosols Robert Mendelsohn a, Michael Schlesinger b and Larry Williams c a Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 360 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA b University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 105 South Gregory Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA c Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA Received 12 January 2000; revised 8 January 2001 Sulfate aerosols (SO4) from anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) generally have a cooling effect. However, if SO2 emissions fall over time, accounting for sulfate aerosols will increase the predicted warming from greenhouse gases. This paper integrates the four marker emission scenarios for CO2 and SO4 from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), the UIUC general circulation model (GCM), and a country-specific impact model (GIM) to calculate the impacts of sulfate aerosols. By 2100, lower SO2 emissions slightly increase warming in the temperate and polar regions causing small damages in the former and small benefits in the latter. If SO2 emissions are also lower in tropical regions, temperatures will rise causing small damages there as well. However, if SO2 emissions rise in tropical regions, temperatures will fall leading to small benefits. 1. Introduction alternative SRES scenarios affect impacts. Starting with the SRES scenarios, we use the University of Illinois Urbana Although it has long been known that carbon dioxide Champaign (UIUC) climate model [17] to make country- (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that tends to warm the specific forecasts of climate for each emission scenario.
    [Show full text]