Climate Feedback

One of the more irritating aspects, if you will, of global change is that air pollution has so far prevented the planet from warming more rapidly than it actually did. Clean air is of course a good thing. But reducing pollution might expose an as of yet ‘masked’ portion of global warming.

This could have a dramatic affect on the Amazon rainforest. A team led by Peter Cox of the University of Exeter, UK, reports in a paper in this week’s Nature that reductions in aerosol pollution will tremendously increase the risk of severe drought in the Amazon region. Here is an editor’s summary of the paper.

Although it accounts for nearly a quarter of the world's fresh water, drought is not unknown in Amazonia.

In the dry season, from July to October, rainfall in the region is linked to sea surface temperatures (SST) in the tropical Atlantic. In years with a pronounced temperature gradient - warming of the tropical Atlantic north of the equator relative to the south – the normal’ position of high and low atmospheric pressure systems can shift, delaying or suppressing the onset of the South American monsoon.

The effect has been observed in 2005, when large parts of the Amazon region were hit by the worst drought in decades. See a Nature news story by Mike Hopkin here (subscription required) and a New York Times story here about the devastating event.

Cox thinks that the 2005 drought was a harbinger of things to come. Their “simulations for the 21st century show a strong tendency for the SST conditions associated with the 2005 drought to become much more common, owing to continuing reductions in reflective aerosol pollution in the Northern Hemisphere.”

Droughts like in 2005 will happen every two years by 2025, and in nine out of ten years by 2060, the model suggests.

How robust is this dire prediction? The Amazonian climate, for reasons not quite understood, is notoriously difficult to simulate. But the Hadley Centre’s climate model which was used for this study has previously reproduced features of the regional climate with greater accuracy than other models.

In Mike Hopkin's words, “the ultimate fear is that the Amazon forest - often touted as an invaluable piece of armour against climate change - could become part of the problem rather than a key element of the solution. Droughts make it more likely that it will become a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, rather than mopping them up.”

Quirin Schiermeier

You can vote or comment on the importance of the new paper in the Journal Club of Nature Reports Climate Change.

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on May 08, 2008
Categories: Biosphere feedbacks, Climate Science, Climate prediction, Extreme Events, Quirin Schiermeier, Topics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

With an uninterrupted 17-million year sediment record of Antarctic’s climatic past now available, scientists are hoping for unique new insights into the continent’s climatic past.

A few initial results of the Antarctic Geological Drilling programme (ANDRILL) were announced last week at the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna. There is an online news story here.

Antarctica’s ice sheets, so it seems, respond more sensitively to climate fluctuations than has been assumed. During warmer periods, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and its floating extension, the western Ross Ice Shelf, have shrunk substantially. Some 3.5 million years ago the ice seems to have disappeared completely for around 200,000 years. There were snow-capped mountains, alpine trees, gushing rivers, quiet lakes – the frozen continent was a place where you would love to go fishing or hiking, were it not for the midges.

The world was warmer then than it is today, but not substantially so. If temperatures continue to rise, glaciers in Antarctic’s warmer western part might begin to retreat again before long. A few million years ago, Antarctic melting probably raised sea levels globally by 10 metres or so. If history repeats itself, we’re headed for trouble.

Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on April 24, 2008
Categories: Recent contributors, Categories, Conferences and Meetings, EGU 2008, Palaeoclimate, Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The dizzying economic growth in Asia threatens to disappoint expectations that new technologies will provide an easy fix for our climate problem, warn the authors of a commentary article in Nature this week.
Roger Pielke, Tom Wigley and Christopher Green believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Change Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for its work, plays “a risky game” when assuming that “spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry out most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions.”

Most of the emissions scenarios that the IPCC considered for its last report include significant ‘built-in’ technological change. In other words, the IPCC assumes that a good deal of climate-friendly innovation will happen spontaneously, in the absence of climate policy measures.

Now, necessity, economic growth and pursuit of profit do generate all kinds of more or less useful new technologies, from atomic bombs to iPods. But assuming that pure market forces will readily come to our aid in matters of climate change might be too optimistic, the commentary authors warn. Worse, they say, the assumption of a lot of spontaneous technological change could be misinterpreted as a license for policymakers not to take aggressive action.

Pielke, Wigley and Green have stirred up a hornets’ nest with their analysis. Some initial reactions to their call to arms are collected in an accompanying news piece. Expert opinions range from “overdue” to “totally misleading”.

So who’s right and who’s wrong, then? Are we dramatically underestimating the challenge of climate change? Or is this just one more twist exercised to unnecessarily dramatize an admittedly serious problem? Or is it all just shadow-boxing in the arcane world of scenario-making?

Economics of climate change are a politicized field. Depending on one’s standpoint (on what market forces can or cannot do, for example), one may find different answers to these questions. Less disputable is the fact that some two billion people in China and India are on the point of adapting to western living standards. Their consumptive power and increasing mobility will add to the global climate and energy problem. Let’s hope that their creativity and engineering skills will also add to its solution.

Quirin Schiermeier

Illustration: B. Mellor

Posted by Anna Barnett on March 31, 2008
Categories: Climate Science, Quirin Schiermeier, Technology | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s been quite a while since the Gulf Stream was last on the Nature cover. This week the old highlight is back.

Now that’s a topic which has caused an awful lot of confusion before. “How global warming will cause the next ice age”, stuff like that. So just to be clear: the Gulf Stream is the mostly wind-driven upper limb of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which ceaselessly transports warm surface water from the Caribbean to middle and high latitudes on the other side of the Atlantic. Yes, ceaselessly. As long as the Earth keeps rotating there’s really nothing in the world (not even global warming) that could bring it to a halt.

It is common knowledge - and true - that the British Isles and Scandinavia enjoy a much warmer climate than Newfoundland or Labrador thanks to the Gulf Stream. But its climatic influence goes far beyond that, a US-Japanese team report in a paper in Nature this week.

They detected the Gulf Stream’s signature in the entire lower atmosphere - namely in air and cloud temperatures, rain bands, pressure fields and wind convergence - above its meandering cross-Atlantic course, and far inland in Europe.

That the influence of the Gulf Stream might penetrate deeply into the atmosphere has been previously assumed. Firm evidence that this is indeed the case, and vehemently so, comes from the combination of satellite observations, operational weather analysis and atmospheric circulation models which the team utilised for their study.

Very likely the Gulf Stream’s direct local effects on the atmosphere are tele-connected, via planetary atmospheric waves, with weather conditions in far-away regions. How frequent and pronounced these remote responses might be is not at all clear. But it seems at least as if Gulf Stream-driven atmospheric dynamics over the North Atlantic have a marked influence on hemisphere-wide climatology.

This, you’ve guessed it, adds another piece to the climate change puzzle. Come what may, the Gulf Stream will not ‘run dry’. But its strength does vary, and a possible weakening of the Atlantic overturning circulation, to which it belongs, is unlikely to leave the Gulf Stream unaffected.

A new ice age will not come over Europe because of that, but storm tracks and rainfall patterns could be affected in rather unpredictable ways.

Quirin Schiermeier

You can vote or comment on the importance of the new Gulf Stream paper in the Journal Club of Nature Reports Climate Change.

Posted by Olive Heffernan on March 12, 2008
Categories: Extreme Events, Features, Journal Club, Ocean science, Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Quirin Schiermeier

A meeting this week in Potsdam, Germany – "Global Sustainability – A Nobel Cause" – ended with the formulation of a memorandum calling for a global contract between science and society and a multi-national innovation programme on the scale of the Apollo programme to meet the challenges arising from climate change.

Earlier at the meeting, the likes of Rajendra Pachauri, Nicholas Stern, Carlo Rubbia and Murray Gell-Mann had reminded the 100 or so participants – among them a dozen Nobel Laureates – about the current state of the science and ecnomics of climate change, and suggested some possible solutions such as solar energy. Convener John Schellnhuber, the scientific director of the nearby Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, who advises the German government on climate issues, brought together an impressive programme. Most talks were interesting, some were brilliant. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered a vivid and informed speech, seemingly without using any notes, which focussed on the issues of equity and carbon ‘justice’. .

What the meeting made clear (again) is that the world has a habit – a carbon habit. And just like some alcoholics, the patient has intellectually grasped his state. It seems to understand pretty well what’s going wrong with it and why, and is capable of lecturing eloquently about the causes and symptoms of its problem (although David Gross, 2004 Nobel Prize winner for physics, sceptically remarked that climate sciences could benefit from a good dose of theoretical physics). What it lacks, however, is the firm will and the capacity, an emotional capacity perhaps, needed to lastingly change its behaviour and stop the abuse.

Continue reading "Potsdam symposium" »

Posted by Oliver Morton on October 12, 2007
Categories: Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Olive Heffernan on behalf of Quirin Schiermeier

The sun, despite claims to the contrary, is not a factor in recent climate change.

Nature had a news article last week about a paper – and the reactions to it - by Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich. Their comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate, were it not for the strong warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

The findings, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, went online yesterday and have triggered a world-wide echo in the media and in the climate-crazy blogosphere.

That is surprising inasmuch the data are by not what you would call a scientific breakthrough. Indeed, most climate scientists will hardly consider the findings particularly new or surprising. Granted, bringing into line solar observations and measurements (and associated theories) collected during the 20th century is anything but trivial. But no matter how one looks at the issue, existing data were long supposed sufficient to disprove the only seemingly reasonable idea that global warming might be the natural result of increased solar activity.

Lockwood and Froehlich’s study does however go a step further. The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.

End of debate? Unfortunately no, I would guess. The inaptly so-named ‘climate sceptics’ who are keen to let mankind off the global warming hook, will not easily abandon this battle-tried warhorse. A natural sun-climate link, albeit invisible and unverifiable, is just the most persuasive among the set of quasi-plausible arguments with which upright eco-optimists attempt to dismiss as a (left-wing? anti-liberal?) conspiracy theory mankind’s responsibility for global warming. The ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ documentary, to be aired tomorrow in Australia, is just the most-recent example of such attempts to argue that climate change is the effect of the sun.

To further confuse things and the public, solar changes do seem to have had an impact on past climates. Moreover, it is at least not impossible that cosmic ray intensity does influences clouds and climate. There’s nothing wrong with investigating these things - that’s how science goes. But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation.

Quirin Schiermeier
German Correspondent
Nature

Posted by Olive Heffernan on July 11, 2007
Categories: Climate Science, Climate variability, In the News, Quirin Schiermeier | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0)