Tom Ackerman Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Planet Earth has warmed over the last 100 years Data analyzed by Hadley Research Centre, United Kingdom Probable Cause Increase in greenhouse gas concentrations Antarctic Ice Core Data 390 370 CO2 Concentration, ppm Mauna Loa Data 350 330 310 Pre-industrial level 290 270 250 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Year 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Atmosphere Carbon balance Fossil fuel emission 6.1 GTon / year Deforestation 1.5 GTon /year Total ~7.5 GT / year Increasing CO2 in atmosphere 3 GT / year Uptake in mixed layer 2.5 GT / year Reforestation in NA 0.5 GT / year Total ~ 6 GT / year The Facts Surface temperature is increasing Increase is unprecedented in last 1000 years (and probably more) CO2 is on the rise – up about 35% About 20% of the CO2 emission cannot be accounted for at present! Increasing CO2 causes increasing surface temperature Okay, so the question is: What’s going to happen to global climate over the next 10 to 50 years? Corollary: How would we know? Let’s build a CLIMATE model! What do we need in our climate model? Atmosphere H2O vapor and Clouds Absorbing gases – CO2 Aerosol Ice Sea ice Ice sheets (glaciers) Biota Surface vegetation Ocean Complete 4D model Coordinates: Latitude Longitude Height Time Constructing a climate model Decide on the variables – what do we want to predict? T, wind speed (3D), water vapor concentration Write down time-dependent equations Temp (time = t + t) = Temp (time = t) + (all the things that change the temperature) Can’t solve these equations exactly How big is big? 300 km x 300 km Typical values for current ATMOSPHERE ONLY climate models 5 variables (minimum) 8190 boxes 26 vertical levels 30 minute time step (48/day) 51.1 million equations / day 18.6 billion equations / year Climate modeling challenges the biggest computers CRAY Japanese Earth Simulator IBM Blue Sky (NCAR) Let’s RUN our climate model! How to run a climate model Prescribed forcing (Sun, CO2, etc.) Initial condition s Coupled Global Climate Model Atmosphere Run forward in time for at least 10 to 30 years Ocean Compare averaged model results with averaged climate results Major questions Can we simulate climate change over the past 100 years? Is it possible that the current increase in temperature is a result of natural variability in the climate system? Simulating the last 150 years Input natural forcing into climate model Volcanic aerosol Solar activity Input anthropogenic forcing CO2 and other greenhouse gases Sulfate aerosol Input both IPCC Conclusion In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to be due to the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. Predicting the future Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – est. 1988 IPCC is an assessment activity – it does not sponsor research or monitor climate Information chain leading to a climate projection Projecting the future: Scenarios Estimate future emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants CO2 Other greenhouse gases Aerosol (sulfate, carbon) Year [CO2] ppmv 1973 330 1983 343 1993 357 2004 377 Rate of increase in CO2 due to emissions: 73 – 03 1.5 ppmv / year 93 – 03 1.8 ppmv / year Assumption: we can tolerate a climate change corresponding to 600 ppmv Question: 1. How many years will it take to reach 600 ppmv at an emission rate of 1.5 ppmv / year? Currently (2004) at 377 ppmv Amount of extra CO2: 600 – 377 = 223 ppmv Length of time to accumulate = amount / rate = 223 ppmv / (1.5 ppmv / year) = 149 years Year [CO2] ppmv 1973 330 1983 343 1993 357 2004 377 Rate of increase in CO2 due to emissions: 73 – 03 1.5 ppmv / year 93 – 03 1.8 ppmv / year Assumption: we can tolerate a climate change corresponding to 600 ppmv Questions: 1. How many years will it take to reach 600 ppmv at an emission rate of 1.5 ppmv / year? = 149 years 2. At an emission rate of 1.8 ppmv / year? = 124 years 3. So what are we worried about? IPCC Scenarios A1: A world of rapid economic growth and rapid introductions of new and more efficient technologies A2: A very heterogenous world with an emphasis on familiy values and local traditions B1: A world of „dematerialization“ and introduction of clean technologies B2: A world with an emphasis on local solutions to economic and environmental sustainability IS92a „business as usual“ scenario (1992) Emissions scale with population Population increases exponentially (not linearly) Emissions increase exponentially (not linearly) Summary: Scenarios CO2 concentrations in this century vary widely depending on assumptions about technology use and energy mix By 2100, we could have CO2 concentrations exceeding 900 ppmv; hard to see how we would have less than ~ 500 ppmv So now let’s put those CO2 estimates into our climate model (“force” our model with CO2) Start of Lecture 2 Where we are … “Built” a climate model Used the climate model to simulate last 150 years – did a pretty good job Developed scenarios for the future – based on projected energy use Started to look at climate change over this during this century IPCC Scenarios A1: A world of rapid economic growth and rapid introductions of new and more efficient technologies A2: A very heterogenous world with an emphasis on familiy values and local traditions B1: A world of „dematerialization“ and introduction of clean technologies B2: A world with an emphasis on local solutions to economic and environmental sustainability IS92a „business as usual“ scenario (1992) Updated: 13 Feb 2007 Figure SPM-5 Figure SPM-6 Sea level rise “Commitment” Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, we are committed to more warming and more sea level rise because we have to wait for the climate system to come into equilibrium with the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 Summary of effects (very certain) The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C by 2100. The projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years. Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. Global mean surface temperature increases and rising sea level from thermal expansion of the ocean are projected to continue for hundreds of years after stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations (even at present levels) Could be more if ice sheets experience catastrophic failure Figure SPM-7 Summary of effects (probable) We expect Greater year-to-year variability in precipitation More intense precipitation events Higher frequency of hot to very-hot days Increased risk of summer drought over continental interiors Decrease in NH snow cover and sea ice extent Continued shrinking of glaciers and ice caps Antarctic ice sheet will increase in mass (increased precipitation), while Greenland ice sheet will decrease So what does this mean for us? From an article in the February 20, 2004 issue of Science Changes in regional hydrology – more rain with less snow pack Reduced stream flow in summer – impacts on fisheries and irrigation Increased storm surge and coastal erosion So what do we do about this? 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change GOAL: “…stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (Article 2) P.S. Our country is a signatory! Four types of policy responses 1. Emissions mitigation (reduce CO2 output) 2. Adaptation (design to meet expected changes) 3. Improvement in scientific understanding 4. Technology development If we are going to stabilize climate, we have to stabilize atmosphere CO2, which means, we have to drive anthropogenic CO2 emissions to 0! THIS IS SCARY! Implicit assumption of major technological change over the next century 50.0 This improvement presumes fully developed: Solar Nuclear Efficient Fossil Electric Advanced Transportation End Use Efficiency 45.0 40.0 IS92a(1990 technology) 35.0 PgC/yr 30.0 IS92a 550 Ceiling 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Stabilization requires additional policies and technology developments that can compete economically because carbon has a ‘value’ What are some of the key “new” technologies? Carbon capture and disposal Renewable resources (physical and chemical) The removal of carbon from a fossil fuel process stream and the disposal of it in a place well-isolated from the atmosphere. Wind, solar, ocean tides Hydrogen Theuse current energy supply (fossil fuel) is NOT freespoken market.of as The of hydrogen as an energy carrier, usually It isfuel cells with many applications, most notably transportation • cartel owned ‘Modern’ biomass • The internationally a handful of large emergencedominated of energy by crops as a source of corporations hydrocarbons from regulated, the fast part of the carbon cycle • derived government subsidized and taxed These technologies are not cheap and will not be competitive with fossil fuels unless we subsidize them Current US Policy Rejected Kyoto accord -- 2001 Kyoto plan called for reductions in absolute GHG Basically business countries, as usual! but no emissions for industrialized For the last 25 years (dating from the first oil crisis in the late 70’s), reductions forofdeveloping this rate reduction hascountries been about 1.6%! Announced plan to reduce GHG emissions as a function of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) – business as usual! 2002 at rateBasically of 1.8% per year Simply replaced the US Global Change Research Program Implemented Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) -- 2002 What about improved understanding? Research effort driven by federal budget Budget numbers in Millions of $US 3,000,000 2,500,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Total US Budget Defense Dept. Climate research Budget numbers in Millions of $US 1400 $1480 / year for every person in the US Does not include supplementary appropriation for Iraq war 1200 1000 $2.70 / year for every person in the US 800 600 400 200 0 Defense Dept (By day) Climate research 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 US Policy Response Emissions mitigation Business as usual Adaptation No plans Improved understanding Technology development No new research focus; static funding for a decade Limited and poorly focused (freedom car) Policy Summary We (the US) are the largest part of the problem but have NO COHERENT STRATEGY to address it (I could say that our current “policy” has moved from benign neglect to active opposition.) The Global Greenhouse Problem We can mitigate the problem but we must begin to act NOW! CO2 molecules have a long lifetime – the molecule you emit today will still be in the atmosphere in 100 years The molecule you don’t emit is one less “commitment” to global warming A technological strategy Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies S. Pacala and R. Socolow (Science, 2004) Nuclear power Hybrid cars Not all wedges are equal – some have more effect early in the process, others take much longer; some are easier than others; some will fail! Types of Wedges Conservation and efficiency Efficient cars (hybrid, H2) Reduce dependence on cars Improved building efficiency Shift to more efficient fuels Agriculture Types of Wedges Conservation and efficiency Renewables Efficient cars (hybrid, H2) Reduce dependence on cars Improved building efficiency Shift to more efficient fuels Agriculture Solar Wind Biomass Nuclear CO2 sequestration Increase standing biomass (reforestation) In summary The Global Greenhouse Problem Is REAL -- we will continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere and the climate will warm. Is LONG TERM -- a problem for decades, not years => YOUR PROBLEM! Has IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY -- global warming will impact water resources, agriculture, energy usage, severe weather damage, sea level, etc., on a regional basis. We (the US) are the largest part of the problem but have NO COHERENT STRATEGY to address it The Global Greenhouse Problem PRESENTS DIFFICULT ETHICAL AND MORAL CHOICES -- in any plausible forecast of the future, there will be losers; there may be some winners. The biggest losers will most likely not be those who are most responsible for the change in climate. Who pays for their losses? With what currency? On what time scale?