Download The science debate behind climate change

THE SCIENCE DEBATE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE
Forecasting the future remains a contentious exercise
Feb 2006
By Michael Coren
(CNN) -- Is global warming really a threat?
Absolutely, respond most scientists, but they have only recently been able to approach a basic agreement about our
changing climate.
First, the Earth has gotten warmer. Since 1850, average global temperatures have risen about .6 degrees Celsius,
the United Nations says. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide released by humans burning fossil fuels and
clearing land are the likely culprits. Sea levels have also risen about 4 to 8 inches during the past century, according
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Second, the concentration of greenhouse gases (or GHG) in the atmosphere is near its highest point in recorded
history. Since the Industrial Revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, have risen 30
percent.
Based on studies of air bubbles trapped in ancient ice, today's levels are higher than any time in at least 420,000
years, said David King, chief science adviser for the British government. If GHG concentrations rise, as expected,
concentrations could cross what some consider a "dangerous" threshold, although that designation is contentious.
Finally, almost every scientist agrees upon one thing: the future is highly uncertain. While most scientists support
projections by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that temperatures will rise 1.4
degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) to 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, the scientific
consensus shows cracks beyond this point.
John Christy, director of Earth System Science Center and critic of severe warming predictions, says forecasting the
future "gets messy quickly."
"The Earth system has more unknowns that we are generally willing to acknowledge," he told CNN via e-mail. "It is
very difficult for [scientists] to say, 'I don't have a clue.'...Our pronouncements often express more confidence than is
warranted given the level of ignorance in which we presently operate."
Climate models inherit this uncertainty. The first crude models -- spinning aluminum dishpans in the 1950s -- have
evolved into some of the world's most sophisticated computer simulations replicating the interaction between the
atmosphere, oceans and continents. Yet the system's complexity -- a mathematical swamp of biological cycles,
ocean circulation, geologic emissions and even solar activity -- injects guesswork into the science.
Despite the uncertainties, says Drew Shindell, a NASA climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
New York, climate models, at least in the short term, are good and "getting better."
"The results become steadily less reliable as you go out in time," Shindell said. "We can do a pretty good job 25 to
30 years out; we have a rough idea 50 years out. By the time you get into 100 years, there's a lot of things we can't
really say."
The biggest questions in the climate equation are water vapor and airborne particles called aerosols. Water vapor
acts like a huge sponge soaking up energy absorbed by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. It is a wild card
for climate modelers because water vapor may also cool the planet by increasing cloud cover. Aerosols -- which can
also cool or warm the planet -- may have other unknown effects.
But Shindell says dozens of climate models run by scientists around the world convincingly describe a world
sweating under the influence of greenhouse gases which trap the sun's energy.
"I think we can say very clearly, with the same amount of energy going in and less going out, [the Earth] has to warm
up," he said. "That's elementary physics."
This growing confidence is the result of progress being made with climate models and deciphering cryptic clues
about ancient climate in tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores. Paleo-climate measurements, once unattainable,
now offer a record of global temperatures stretching back 750,000 years.
"There is no doubt that humans are warming the planet. That's very clear now," says Jeffrey Severinghaus, a
geoscience researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. "The data is beautiful. It's very strong. Humans are
changing the climate, and we're expected to change it a lot more in the future."
Global warming 'alarmists'?
Scientists were not always so convinced.
As early as 1979, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported with "high confidence" that a 1.5 to 4.5 degree
Celsius temperature increase was likely if carbon dioxide levels doubled. It was greeted by a chorus of skepticism.
However, the past two decades have also seen the retreat of once noisy critics. BP, a major energy company, says it
is now taking "precautionary action" against climate change by cutting greenhouse emissions and investing in
mitigation of greenhouse gases.
Nonetheless, a minority of scientists reject what they call "alarmist" global warming on scientific grounds. They raise
three major objections, which most researchers agree remain troublesome.



Natural climate variability is not well understood and may be greater than once thought.
Computer models are oversimplifications that cannot simulate the complexities of the real climate.
Temperature extrapolations of the past are not precise enough to make dire conclusions about "normal"
warming.
Richard Lindzen, a respected meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says in light of these
uncertainties, pronouncements about climate change are both self-serving and unscientific.
"Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements. Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist
declarations. Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money," said Lindzen at a scientific conference
this January. He added that the accepted evidence is "entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all."
This sentiment is in the extreme minority of the scientific community, said Richard Sommerville, meteorologist at the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who drew a parallel with proposing that HIV does not cause AIDS.
"[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the
scientific community thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we move on."
New research
Plenty of questionable scientific claims muddy the discussion on climate change. Extreme weather events such as
last year's hurricane season in the Atlantic are not conclusively linked to global warming, say scientists at NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center. It is exceedingly difficult to establishing a causal link between global warming and
these events.
Even melting glaciers, such as the rapidly receding ice cap on Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro or the collapse of an
Antarctic ice shelf, while consistent with climate change, cannot be decisively linked to the phenomenon.
But major studies released this year appear to buttress the belief the Earth is undergoing significant warming and will
continue to do so.
Tim Barnett, a researcher with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, told the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in February that the world's oceans are heating up from the top down. Barnett found the
world's six ocean basins show a .5 degree Celsius increase since the 1940s in a pattern that could only be explained
by human-induced warming.
An Oxford University report, published in the journal Nature, used computers networked over the Internet to conduct
one of the most powerful computer climate simulations ever attempted. It appeared to confirm that predictions of
warming of at least 2 degrees Celsius -- and perhaps as high as 11 degrees Celsius -- were possible.
Ultimately, scientists who believe global warming is underway say uncertainties do not undermine the significance of
the research.
"When you go to your doctor, and she says you're due for a heart attack, you don't turn around and say medicine is
imperfect even if she can't predict the date of your heart attack," Sommerville said. "You take it seriously. I think
climate science is in that position now."
Questions: Answer as a group. Please type, your answers will be posted for everyone to read.
1. Evaluate this article using OPVL (Origin, Purpose, Value, Limitations)
a. What questions do we need to answer before we can say whether this is a good or bad article?
2. The second to last paragraph in the article says that uncertainties do not undermine the significance of the
research. Given what you have learned about measurements, uncertainty and error propagation explain this
idea.
3. Is it a valid argument to say that the scientific community has not reached a consensus on the causes of
global warming because there are scientists out there who think there isn’t enough proof? At what point
would we say that the scientific community agrees?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html?iref=newssearch
Follow up:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
http://www.grist.org/article/position-statements-hide-debate
Isotopes and Global Warming
Part of the Global Warming Data relies on a graph showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature for the
past 100,000 years. Where on earth did that data come from? Much of it came from ice core sampling. Ice at the
poles holds a historical record of the Earth’s climate. Each year, a fresh layer of snow falls onto the ice. Throughout
the year as the layer of snow melts and refreezes, the snow becomes compacted forming glacial ice. Glacial ice is
pretty interesting! It takes 30 feet of snow to make 1 inch of glacial ice and it has a beautiful blue color because of
the new crystal structure that forms when water molecules are under high pressure. Each layer of ice is observable
using spectroscopic techniques, but in some cases, when there was a volcanic eruption, for example, the layers are
even discernible to the naked eye. The snow that forms glacial ice holds important clues about Earth’s climate.
Specifically, it traps gases like CO2 so scientists can measure the relative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the
time. Of course, this is inexact because of all the factors that could affect the amount of CO 2 in ice core samples.
Scientists take these into consideration using their computer models, but there is always some inherent uncertainty
that can exponentially increase if the assumptions their model is based on are faulty.
In addition to trapped gases, ice is made up of water molecules that have a certain isotopic make-up that is
temperature dependent. Remember that oxygen exists as two isotopes; Oxygen-16, the most common isotope, and
Oxygen-18. Some water molecules are made with this oxygen-18 isotope and scientists can use the amount of
oxygen-18 in a certain ice core sample to figure out what the temperature was. Why does this work? Which is
heavier, Oxygen 18 or Oxygen 16? Oxygen 18 is heavier. Therefore it takes more energy to get it to evaporate.
More oxygen-18 will evaporate when the Earth is warmer. These evaporated molecules coalesce in the atmosphere
and form precipitation that falls over the poles, eventually forming ice. So, if an ice core has a lot more Oxygen-18
than another, we know it was hotter that year. I have simplified the idea significantly. Global climate change
modeling and data gathering is very complex, but the ideas are pretty simple and ingenious.
1. What is the normal isotopic abundance of oxygen-18 on Earth?
2. Why is oxygen-18 heavier than oxygen-16?
3. Using the information above,
a. Identify specific data from ice core sampling scientists need to collect to construct the following
graph
b. Explain how they might go about using the data to construct the graph
http://earthednet.org/Ocean_Materials/Mini_Studies/PaleoClimate/Paleoclimate.html