Climate Change: The Move to Action (AOSS 480 // NRE 480)

1. Climate Change: The Move to Action(AOSS 480 // NRE 480) Richard B. Rood Cell: 301-526-8572 2525 Space Research Building (North Campus) rbrood@umich.edu http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood Winter 2010 February 18, 2010

2. Class News • Ctools site: AOSS 480 001 W10 • On Line: 2008 Class • Reference list from course • Rood Blog Data Base • Reading

3. Make Up Class / Opportunity • Make up Class on March 8, Dana 1040, 5:00 – 7:30 PM, Joint with SNRE 580 • V. Ramanathan, Scripps, UC San Diego • Please consider this a regular class and make it a priority to attend. • Pencil onto calendar on April 6, Jim Hansen, time TBD.

4. Outline • Project details • Science summary • Evaluation / Validation • Assessment / IPCC • Lecture over at 10:30 • Meet with people who need to define project teams

5. Project Details • Think about Projects for a while • The role of the consumer • Energy efficiency / Financing Policy • Science influence on policy, Measurements of carbon, influence • Role of automobile, transportation, life style • Water, fresh water, impact on carbon, • Geo-engineering, public education, emergency management, warning, • Water, insurance, Midwest development, Michigan, regional • Dawkins, socio-biology • What leads to a decision • What does it really mean in the village • Geo-engineering, urban sustainability • US Policy, society interest, K-12, education

6. Project Details • You want to make a knowledge-based evaluation of the problem and present an approach or a set of possible approaches to address the problem. (Want you to be very aware of “advocacy” in your thinking.) • Project Description

7. Projects: Goals and Context • In school students often learn to work independently, in their field, but in jobs people are often thrown into teams • You are suddenly the “expert.” • Goals • How to define a tractable problem // reduce it to something you can do • Drawing a picture • How to separate the essence of a problem from the details • What do we know, what do we believe, what are we attached to? • What do the other participants really need – not what you think they need. • Check, How to Check • Communication • Complexity, sophistication, audience, context, naivety, dumbing down • How to explain what you are doing. • Balance, optimization

8. Projects • Bigger goals ... • How do we move this problem beyond polarized positions on details. • Move it from climate-policy, climate-business, climate-public health, climate-agriculture, climate-ecosystems, climate-...(interest advocacy groups) • to climate-business-policy-public health - ecosystems • How do we bring several communities together for the development of foundational solution paths or, at least, strategies that make sense. • Systems, systems, systems

9. Skill Set • Analysis • Distinguish between facts and inferences • Judgment • What is the quality of the knowledge? • Synthesis • How do pieces fit together?

10. Deconstructing how to think about projects. 4) What to do? Consequences? Options? 1) Describe what is in the picture. What are the facts? Make an inventory of what is known. Make an inventory of what is not known. 2) Analysis: How credible is the information? What is the integrity of the reporting? How complete is the picture? Is there derived knowledge? … 3) Does it matter? Impact. Consequences. Relations Why?

11. An interesting book for thinking about projects:(Example of process, deconstruction, …) Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options David Victor (2004) Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY 166 pages.

12. Project Details • I will become your customer / audience • I will reframe your vision into a question, perhaps a naïve question. • Teams and I will “meet” at least twice before the presentation at the end of the semester. • Questions likely focused and made less naïve. • Final presentation / power point / and narrative.

13. Projects; Short Conversation • “Geo-engineering” --- managing heating in the near-term / Role of Attribution / Managing the climate, what climate information is needed / Air quality • Transportation / Automobiles / Energy / Market / • Weather / Extreme Events / Agriculture / Carbon Sinks / Local Adaptation

14. Science Summary / Validation

15. Summary Points Correlated Observations CO2 and Temperature Observed to be strongly related on long time scales (> 100 years) CO2 and Temperature not Observed to be strongly related on short time scales (< 10 years) Theory / Empirical Evidence CO2 and Water Vapor Hold Heat Near Surface Theory / Conservation Principle Mass and Energy Budgets  Concept of “Forcing” Observations CO2 is Increasing due to Burning Fossil Fuels

16. Summary Points: Science Correlated Observations CO2 and Temperature Observed to be strongly related on long time scales (> 100 years) CO2 and Temperature not Observed to be strongly related on short time scales (< 10 years) Theory / Empirical Evidence CO2 and Water Vapor Hold Heat Near Surface Validation Prediction Earth Will Warm Theory / Conservation Principle Mass and Energy Budgets  Concept of “Forcing” Consequences Observations CO2 is Increasing due to Burning Fossil Fuels

17. Validation: What do we do? • We develop models based on the conservation of energy and mass and momentum, the fundamental ideas of classical physics. (Budget equations) • We determine the characteristics of production and loss from theory and observations of, for instance, the eruption of a major volcano and the temperature response as measured by the global observing system. • We attempt to predict the temperature (“Energy”) response. • We evaluate (validate) how well we did, characterize the quality of the prediction relative to the observations, and determine, sometimes with liberal interpretation, whether or not we can establish cause and effect.

18. Schematic of a model experiment. Model prediction without forcing Model prediction with forcing Model prediction with forcing and source of internal variability Observations or “truth” T Start model prediction T Eat+Dt=Eat + Dt((Pa – LaEa)+(Traoil+Ma ))

19. CO2 and Temperature for Last 1000 years Surface temperature and CO2 data from the past 1000 years. Temperature is a northern hemisphere average. Temperature from several types of measurements are consistent in temporal behavior. { Note that on this scale, with more time resolution, that the fluctuations in temperature and the fluctuations in CO2 do not match as obviously as in the long, 350,000 year, record. What is the cause of the temperature variability? Can we identify mechanisms, cause and effect? How?

20. What do we know from model experiments and evaluation (validation) with observations • With consideration of solar variability and volcanic activity, the variability in the temperature record prior to 1800 can be approximated. • After 1800 need to consider the impact of man • Deforestation of North America • Fossil fuel emission • Change from coal to oil economy • Clean air act • Only with consideration of CO2, increase in the greenhouse effect, can the temperature increase of the last 100 years be modeled.

21. What about internal variability? • In a climate simulation the goal is to represent internal variability statistically, not on an event-by-event basis. • There is no reason to assume that these modes of variability remain constant as the climate changes.

22. Internal Variability? • There are modes of internal variability in the climate system which cause global changes. • El Nino – La Nina • What is El Nino • North Atlantic Oscillation • Climate Prediction Center: North Atlantic Oscillation • Annular Mode • Inter-decadal Tropical Atlantic • Pacific Decadal Oscillation

23. Perhaps something like this. Times series of El Nino (NOAA CPC) Models do not represent internal variability on an event-by-event basis. EL NINO LA NINA OCEAN TEMPERATURE EASTERN PACIFIC ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE DIFFERENCE

24. Back to the Predictions • So we have constructed these models. • Defining the production and loss. • Model the conservation laws that support internal variability. • We make predictions of the past and present and work to validate performance • There are successes • There are failures • Some of which are persistent. • We draw our conclusions

25. Here is a strong figure • But it has some issues

26. Figure TS.23

27. 1998 Climate Forcing (-2.7, -0.6) 2001 (-3.7, 0.0) Hansen et al: (1998) & (2001)

28. HERE IS YOUR BEST CHANCE AT COOLING Positive radiative forcing warms climateNegative radiative forcing cools climate ? from Joyce Penner

29. Land Use / Land Change Other Greenhouse Gases Aerosols Internal Variability Validation Consequences Feedbacks Air Quality “Abrupt” Climate Change Summary Points: Science Correlated Observations CO2 and Temperature Observed to be strongly related on long time scales (> 100 years) CO2 and Temperature not Observed to be strongly related on short time scales (< 10 years) Theory / Empirical Evidence CO2 and Water Vapor Hold Heat Near Surface Prediction Earth Will Warm Theory / Conservation Principle Mass and Energy Budgets  Concept of “Forcing” Observations CO2 is Increasing due to Burning Fossil Fuels

30. Practices in Climate Community

31. OBSERVATIONS THEORY EXPERIMENT Scientific Investigation Problem Solving Unification Integration Knowledge Generation Reduction Disciplinary

32. OBSERVATIONS THEORY EXPERIMENT Scientific Investigation Problem Solving Unification Integration Knowledge Generation Reduction Disciplinary Assessments Refereed Journals

33. Reviewers: • Anonymous • Recuses hisself / herself if prejudiced • Authors Often: • Chooses amongst Editors • Recommends Reviewers • Provides names of Collaborators • Provides names of Competitors • Editors: • A volunteer from community • Approved by publisher • Professional society • Commercial publisher • Recuses hisself / herself if prejudiced Peer Review: Understanding Science Berkeley

34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (The assessment process) How is this information evaluated, integrated and transmitted to policymakers? Scientist-authors are nominated by governments to assess the state of the science Published in refereed literature IPCC CLIMATE REPORTS 2001 2007 What we know + uncertainty Draft documents are reviewed by experts who did NOT write the draft. // Open review as well • U.S. Climate Change Science Program • U.S. Global Change Research Program • Assessments • U.S. National Assessment Review by government officials // Final language // All agree National Academy of Sciences Study Process Draft revised

35. Note IPCC Report Process

36. A paper of interest • Daniel Farber: • Review of Climate Modeling Activities and why they should have legal standing.

37. Let’s talk about projects