The More We Know, the Worse it Gets

Warning: Parts of this report are seriously depressing.

This week I'm focusing on a few newsworthy climate studies that just came out in the last few weeks. Just this past week, two studies were published in the journal Nature that point a finger at human-caused climate change (aka anthropogenic climate change) as being the cause of bigger storms and flooding seen over the last few decades.

This might not seem like such a big deal. Scientists have been saying for a long time that climate change would cause stronger storms. But saying that that's what should happen and proving that actual storms and floods out there in the real world happened because of people and what we're doing to our climate -- those are two very different things.

Actually attributing the blame for past storms to human activity isn't easy. Here's what the scientists did: In one study, they compared records of rainfall over 50 years to computer models that included human-produced greenhouse gases. They found that the human-produced GHGs contributed to the increase in big rain events over this time. The other study looked specifically at the record-breaking rain and flooding in the UK in the fall of 2000 to see if they could attribute those specific events to a human cause.

Two cool things about this study. One was what they found and the other was how they did it. The researchers ran lots of computer models and calculated that yes, human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk of these floods occurring. (Specifically, they increased the chance of flooding by over 20% in 9 out of 10 cases and by more than 90% in 2 out of 3 cases.)

So it's pretty likely that people were to blame for these events that broke all precipitation records going back to 1766. Here's the second cool part: They ran the computer models using free time on the computers of regular people around the world. It's called climateprediction.net, run by Oxford University. People sign up to have the model run in the background of their computer when it's not using its full processing capacity. How cool is that?!? (So cool that I instantly went to the site and signed up. It took me a little while to get it up and running, but now I'm running a climate model on my computer as I type! And I don't have to do anything! Seriously -- you should check it out. Climateprediction.net)

Okay, now for the truly depressing part. Canadian researchers designed a computer model to test what would happen to climate over the next 1,000 years (that's to the year 3,000) even if people stopped producing any CO2 today and total emissions went to zero. What they found was pretty alarming: Despite global temperature reaching a steady plateau (that's one good thing, at least), certain parts of the globe continue to experience pretty intense ongoing climate change. One of the worst hit areas is North Africa, which is predicted to get up to 30% drier in an already drought-prone part of the world.

The other big impact they discovered is the continued warming of the Southern Ocean, which circles Antarctica, as well as Antarctica itself continuing to warm up over the next 1,000 years. The real concern here is that the warmer water and/or warm air would cause Antarctica to start melting catastrophically. West Antarctica, where the bottom of the 2-mile deep ice sheet is well below sea level, could completely collapse into the ocean.

Pretty scary stuff. Yes, it's just a computer model and definitely subject to its own flaws and uncertainties. However, I personally don't find that thought very comforting, as this model was based on a situation with zero human CO2 emissions in 2010 -- a wildly optimistic scenario and one that's now totally impossible, since it's 2011 and we're still pumping out CO2 faster than ever.

So, where does this leave us? I myself, besides taking the step of running climate models in my computer's spare time, am torn between paralysis in the face of such daunting odds and an even greater sense of urgency to do more, better, faster what I'm doing already -- working for ACE, teaching young people about this monumental problem and empowering them to take action. Tomorrow I'll be speaking at West Campus High School in Sacramento where I face the problem of having not one, but two competing green clubs who want to be ACE Action Teams. I know I'll come away from meeting these students, as I do after almost every school I visit, re-energized by the enthusiasm and passion they have to make a difference.

The more we know, the worse it gets. But there's hope for us yet.

 

Follow Rebecca Anderson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/climateed

Comments

[Newman Noggs]

06:35 PM on 03/04/2011

It appears that the only solution is to start eliminating cabon emitters. By that I mean reduce the total number of carbon footprints. How does the lottery work and how is it enforced?

Is there really any other option?

[hwa]

12:31 PM on 03/04/2011

I'm a believer, but lets take new tack on the the other side. They say it is just a natural thing, the earth warming. It will still kill us. So even though it could be natural, lets do everything we can to slow it down. Maybe we will get some converts.

[marshhen]

08:59 AM on 03/04/2011

The IPCC Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as one can get asserting that global warming would cause a decline in heavy snow events. As the Senate chairman would say, while waving the IPCC report, “We have it….” But now that real-world evidence has proven IPCC wrong, the alarmists have pulled an about-face and are claiming global warming is causing more frequent heavy snow events.

Regardless of whether global warming is causing more heavy snow events, the alarmists’ about-face on snowfall calls to mind other alarmist global warming assertions that were supposedly “settled science”, but that were subsequently refuted by real-world climate conditions. The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing more hurricanes, but real-world data show hurricanes have fallen to historically lows levels.

The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion. IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/03/02/global-warming-alarmists-flip-flop-on-snowfall/

[Trepasky]

11:26 AM on 03/04/2011

No doubt there are mistakes as in any filed, intial assumptions and theories are tested and models are refined.

Whether the changes are human based is a minor issue. Changes in the climate are occurring more rapidly than previously thought.

Here's another source about Kilimanjar­o
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mount-kilimanjaro-snow.htm

[marshhen]

02:12 PM on 03/04/2011

Bit the science was settled. There were supposingly no mistakes, it was beyond question. They were wrong.

[Greg Comlish]

07:31 PM on 03/04/2011

The Denial community continues to distort the IPCC's Third Report. In that report they said that snowfall would tend to be replaced by rainfall at the beginning and end of the winter season. They also said that total precipitation would increase in certain areas, which could include increased snow. That report never said that snowfall during the peak of winter would decrease, but the denial community takes it out of context to push their agenda.

[Trepasky]

08:10 AM on 03/04/2011

I am amazed by the fervor with which folks post the 'hoax' or bad science is the cause of Global Warming (Climate Change).

It seems there is an agenda behind the deniers postings. SOme post that 'real science' suggests things are actually normal. Yet the rate of ocean acidification is faster in the past 150 than in the past 65,000,000 caused by co2 absorption.

Some say the Global Climate Change is a front for someone who will profit from the changes necessary to reduce our co2 emissions. Yet, glaciers melts and permafrost thawing continues.

IN some posts the links provided are to sites that are funded by energy companies, the Koch brothers, and other businesses/foundations that would have to spend money to ensure our planet remains habitable by humans and other life forms.

SOme of the sites I find useful are:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

[marshhen]

10:04 AM on 03/04/2011

See my above post. The science was indeed wrong in their predictions and in some cases conclusions

[GeniusInTheory]

05:43 PM on 03/04/2011

ahhh, now THOSE are independent thinking websites.

[Trepasky]

06:23 AM on 03/05/2011

All sites have biases.

At least the site I posted have a science orientation that is based upon realistic principles and address many of the concerns folks post here seeking answers.

I do read all the links posted especially those as replies tp my comments.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/dangerous-potentially-irreversible-climate-change-happening-faster-than-thought.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

[SecondTime]

07:24 PM on 03/03/2011

The methods in the paper on precipitation have been subject to trenchant criticism. I suspect we shall hear little more from the authors on this particular topic. There is nothing depressing about their work since it has negligible value. More dispiriting is the fact that it got through a clearly feeble peer-review process.

[BackOfTheClass]

07:15 PM on 03/03/2011

Confirming a computer model by checking it against a set of past events is fraught with confirmation error problems. Are they going to use the computer models to make predictions of future climate?

[rincon2010]

05:25 PM on 03/03/2011

I have read many articles of this nature; the demands and consequences on the planet of an ever-increasing human population. They all end with "hope." Why? Because all else has failed and hope is the only option remaining. All models, projections and probabilities based on historical and current data result in failure. Of all the perils inherent to anthropocentrism, hope, in this case, clings to the vacuous concept humans can simultaneously be the cause and the solution to catastrophe.

[nellre]

04:16 PM on 03/03/2011

It is all over for us long before the year 3000.
What I want to know is where to build a refuge to wait out the end of the age of man

[SecondTime]

07:26 PM on 03/03/2011

Learn the words to this song: 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'. Sing it every day. It might help.

[singsingsing]

05:06 AM on 03/04/2011

How about Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" Giving up is not an option, one day the deniers will wake up, if it's too late, it's too late. But to quit seems the cowardly thing to do.

[eugenemyst]

01:37 PM on 03/03/2011

Thanks for the heads up about depressing. Good article.

[SecondTime]

01:28 PM on 03/03/2011

I like the headline - it describes the transition more and more people are making from being concerned about AGW, believing there is good science behind it, to being sceptical, realising that there is nothing but computer models rigged to give CO2 a dramatic role via feedbacks. Unobserved feedbacks. As for these papers you refer to, here is a decent reflection on them:

“When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.

More here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8349545/Unscientific-hype-about-the-flooding-risks-from-climate-change-will-cost-us-all-dear.html

[Trepasky]

08:15 AM on 03/04/2011

Interesting article as is the following

How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/15/climate-change-scepticism-arctic-ice