Audience Test

About This Presentation
Title:

Audience Test

Description:

Climate Change The 4-point consensus view of global warming Some objections impartially considered Evaluating Impacts Stern Review Nb: this is my personal view, and I ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Audience Test


1
(No Transcript)
2
Audience Test
  • How much has global temperature risen over the
    past 100 years?
  • How much might sea level rise over the next 100
    years?

3
(No Transcript)
4
GW is happening (cont...)
5
(2) We're causing it
6
(2) We're causing it (cont...)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(4) This will be a Bad Thing
  • Sea level rise is bad, but slow (even with recent
    speedups?) http//www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar
    chives/2006/03/greenland-ice-and-other-glaciers/
  • Temperature rise regionally varying winners and
    losers, political tradeoffs
  • Ecological impacts important, but I don't know

10
Common myths, impartially considered
  • Satellite temperatures - show warming too
  • The urban heat island - negligible effect
  • The hockey stick controversy
  • The Day After Tomorrow - will not happen
  • Little relation between the Ozone hole and GW
  • CO2 increase is anthropogenic (more than...)
  • Hurricanes (and severe weather)

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Urban Heat Island (1)
  • Cities tend to be hotter than the surrounding
    countryside. But (for the purposes of the
    temperature record) we care about trends ie are
    cities getting even warmer?
  • Hansen et al. (JGR, 2001) adjusted trends in
    urban stations around the world to match rural
    stations in their regions, in an effort to
    homogenise the temperature record. Of these
    adjustments, 42 warmed the urban trends which
    is to say that in 42 of cases, the cities were
    getting cooler relative to their surroundings
    rather than warmer. One reason is that urban
    areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are
    often sited in "cool islands" - parks, for
    example - within urban areas.
  • IPCC UHI does not exceed about 0.05C over the
    period 1900 to 1990, because
  • land, sea, and borehole records are in agreement
  • the trends in urban stations for 1951 to 1989
    (0.10C/decade) are not greatly more than those
    for all land stations (0.09C/decade).
  • the differences in trend between rural and all
    stations are also virtually unaffected by
    elimination of areas of largest temperature
    change, like Siberia, because such areas are well
    represented in both sets of stations.

14
(No Transcript)
15
Hockey Stick controversy... or,The temperature
over the last 1-2 kyr
Osbourn and Briffa http//www.realclimate.org/ind
ex.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-mille
nnium/
16
(No Transcript)
17
Ozone hole/depletion and climate change
  • Although they are often interlinked in the
    popular press, the connection between global
    warming and ozone depletion is not strong.
  • Global warming from CO2 radiative forcing is
    expected (perhaps somewhat surprisingly) to cool
    the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a
    relative increase in ozone depletion and the
    frequency of ozone holes.
  • Conversely, ozone depletion represents a
    radiative forcing of the climate system. O3
    losses over the past two decades have tended to
    cool the surface.
  • One of the strongest predictions of the GW theory
    is that the stratosphere should cool. However,
    although this is observed, it is difficult to use
    it for attribution (for example, warming induced
    by increased solar radiation would not have this
    upper cooling effect) because similar cooling is
    caused by ozone depletion.

18
CO2 emissions... reductions?
The bill will set out a statutory commitment to
cut CO2 emissions by 60 from 1990 levels by
2050, requiring annual cuts way above anything
the Labour government has achieved so far...
Guardian, 2006/11/15
  • Of the "frontrunners" one is an order of
    magnitude bigger than the rest Extend UK
    participation in EU carbon trading scheme (4.2).
    Means don't actually produce less CO2, but buy
    permits to emit it.
  • Of the "emerging" category, the two biggest are
    Introduce ways to store carbon pollution
    underground (0.5-2.5) (i.e., don't produce any
    less, just...) and Force energy suppliers to use
    more offshore wind turbines (Up to 1). Which
    would actually save CO2.
  • In the "difficult" category the biggest is Change
    (read enforce) road speed limits (1.7) - a
    surprisingly large number.

19
Hurricanes and severe weather
  • There is some evidence for hurricanes becoming
    more stronger and some suggestions for this in
    the future in the models
  • But most impacts come from more people living
    near the beach
  • Katrina was unlucky

http//www.realclimate.org/index.php?p181
20
Stern Review
  • Received to rapturous applause from UK
    politicians and press
  • Apparently intended to be used to beat Bush over
    the head
  • Not much science (one chapter of 27). Purports to
    take the IPCC position
  • Finds higher costs of climate change, and lower
    costs of fixing this, than just about everyone
    else, but doesn't really explain why
  • Objections raised in the blogosphere and beyond,
    mostly to the economics
  • Nordhaus Stern is using a social discount rate
    that is essentially zero. And The Review's
    unambiguous conclusions about the need for
    extreme immediate action will not survive the
    substitution of discounting assumptions that are
    consistent with today's market place.
  • The review uses a high-end emission scenario (A2)
    together with what appears to be excess weight to
    higher climate sensitivities Several new studies
    suggest up to a 20 chance that warming could be
    greater than 5C. I think sensitivities that high
    are distinctly unlikely.
  • Won't work.

21
Evaluating Impacts
  • Not really my thing just some ideas
  • Of the Consensus View, the weakest point is
    ...and it will be a bad thing. Which is not to
    say its wrong, just harder to evaluate. Risk
    change from what we (and ecologies) are adapted
    to.
  • Sea Level Rise is fairly obviously bad, but
    probably slow (surprises?)
  • Ecological impacts I don't know but difficult
    political choices how many flights to go skiing
    are people prepared to forgo, in order to save
    polar bears (were that the choice).
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)