Download Workshops

The Pliocene Paradox Workshop
October 21-22, 2004
Chaired by S. George H. Philander
The Pliocene Paradox
GFDL & Guyot Hall/October 21-23, 2004
THURSDAY GFDL, Forrestal Campus
9:00 AM
Introductory remarks(Empirical Information)
Philander
9:20 AM
Warm Surface Waters in Upwelling Zones
Ravel et. al.
10:00 AM
High Latitude Changes in Oceanic Stratification
Sigman, Huag
10.50 AM
The Response to Obliquity Variations
Herbert et. al.
11:30 AM
Nonlinear Aspects of the Obliquity Response
Huybers, Wunch
LUNCH
1:30 PM
The Atlantic - Theorectical Considerations
deMenocal
2:15 PM
The Atmospheric Response to a Permanent El Nino
Barreiro
2:50 PM
Conditions That Can Maintain a Permanent El Nino
Fedorov
3:15 PM
Response to Milankovitch in a Climate Model
Broccoli
3:45 PM
The Response of Various Climate Models to Higher CO2
Ramaswamy et. al.
FRIDAY
Guyot Hall, Main Campus
9:00 AM
Response to Milankovitch in a Climate Model
Summary of Results/Discussion of projects
Broccoli
LUNCH
2:00 PM
Empirical Information
3:30 PM
Theoretical and Modeling Considerations
Fedorov, Delworth
Discussion
Herbert, Molteni
RECEPTION
Ravelo, Huybers, Wunsch
Cooperative Institute for Climate Science
The Pliocene Paradox Workshop
The first workshop was held in Princeton on October 21 and 22, 2004 to discuss:
Conditions during the early Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago approximately) amount to a
paradox: the world was much warmer then than it is now even though the same sunlight was
incident on essentially the same global geography, and even though the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was essentially the same as today. This paradox implies that climatic
conditions then, and those of today, are two very different responses to essentially the same
external forcing. The critical questions are therefore: What disturbances can cause a transition
from one state to the other? Can the current rise in atmospheric CO2 cause a transition?
The workshop’s twenty participants discussed conditions during the early Pliocene (3 to 5
million years ago approximately) which amounts to a paradox: the world was much warmer then
than it is now even though the same sunlight was incident on essentially the same global
geography, and even though the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was essentially the
same as today. This paradox implies that climatic conditions then, and those of today, are two
very different responses to essentially the same external forcing. The transition from that state
(which included perennial El Nino conditions) to the present one involved recurrent Ice Ages
induced by Milankovitch forcing. What disturbances can cause a return to the earlier warmer
world? Can the current rise in atmospheric CO2 cause such a transition?
From the observational results it is evident that, in the equatorial Pacific, sea surface
temperatures were as warm in the east as the west up to 3 Ma. El Niño was in effect perennial up
to that time. The appearance of cold surface waters introduced feedbacks associated with tropical
ocean-atmosphere interactions, significantly enhancing climate sensitivity to perturbations such as
the Milankovitch forcing. A solution to the Pliocene paradox could be the following important
difference between the early Pliocene and today: atmospheric CO2 has been high for merely a few
decades before the present, but had been high for many millennia leading up to 3 Ma. It is entirely
possible that the prolonged persistence of high CO2 levels will cause a return of perennial El Nino
conditions.
These results were presented during the final half day of the workshop to a public audience at
Princeton University.
Workshop on Global Warming: The Psychology of Long Term Risk
November 12, 2004
Chaired by Michael Oppenheimer
Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs
Workshop on Global Warming: The Psychology of Long Term Risk
300 Wallace Hall
Morning Session
8:30 a.m. - 8:55a.m.
Continental Breakfast
300 Wallace Hall
9:00a.m. - 9:15 a.m.
Background Presentation on Climate Science, Article 2 of Framework
Convention
Dr. Stephen S. Schneider Stanford University - tenative
Discussant: Dr. Michael Oppenheimer - Princeton University
9:20 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. Panel I: Public Opinion/Public Values
Dr. Jon Alexander Kronsnick - Ohio State University
Dr. Anthony A. Leiserowitz - University of Oregon
Dr. Nick Pidgeon - University of East Anglia - tentative
Discussant: Dr. Dale W. Jamieson - New York University
10:55 a.m. -12:15 p.m. Panel 2: Individual Perception of risk-how people view long term risk
Dr. Elke Weber - Columbia University
Dr. Timothy L. McDaniels - University of British Columbia
Dr. W. Kip Viscusi - Harvard Law School
Discussant: Dr. Klaus Keller - The Pennyslvania State University
12:20 p.m. - 1:20p.m. Lunch
Luncheon Speaker -
Dr. Daniel Kahneman - Princeton University - tentative
Afternoon Session
1:25 p.m. 2:55 p.m.
Panel 3: Judgment and decision-making with respect to long term risk
Dr. Jonathan M. Baron - University of Pennyslvania
Dr. Richard Zeckhauser - Harvard University
Dr. Shane Frederick - Sloan School of Managemnet
Discussant: Dr. Stephen Pacala - Princeton University
3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Panel 4: Communicating Risk (by Scientists, political leaders)
Dr. Max H. Bazerman - Harvard Buisness School
Dr. Cass R. Sunstein - University of Chicago
Dr. Baruch Fischhoff -Carnegie Melon University
Discussant: Dr. Daniel P. Schrag - Harvard University
4:35 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.
Cocktail reception for panelist and invited guest Room 333 Wallace Hall
5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Informal dinner for panelist and invited guest
Room 300 Wallace Hall
Cooperative Institute for Climate Science
Global Warming: The Psychology of Long Term Risk Workshop
The first workshop was held on November 12, 2004 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs.
The workshop brought together eleven experts in cognitive psychology, social psychology, economics,
and public opinion and survey research to present papers on how Americans incorporate information
about climate change, and how their views and attitudes compare to those held by Europeans and others.
Also discussed was the question of which means of communicating information about climate change are
effective and which are not. In a novel feature, the workshop also brought in four climate science experts
as discussants to comment on the psychology presentations, leading to lively discussions of long term risk
and risk communication. The workshop attracted an audience of about thirty participants, including
philosophers, ethicists, and economists, in addition to climate scientists and ecologists. Princeton
University participants came from the Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Geosciences,
and the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program and also included a half-dozen graduate students
from the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Program. A number of participants from
NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were also in attendance.
There is a great demand for information about climate change from scientists. Government, media,
educational institutions and the general public are some of the audiences that scientists seek to satisfy. But
there have been few studies of how information about climate change is absorbed and interpreted by the
public, particularly with regard to how the risk of climate change is evaluated by the public. Landmark
studies over the past 25 years have revolutionized understanding of the psychology of risk, yet the climate
science community has thus far not incorporated these. Proceedings of the workshop will be published as
a special issue.
Current accepted papers as of October 31, 2005:
Leiserowitz, Anthony. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect,
Imagery, and Values. accepted: Special Volume, Climatic Change.
Sunstein, Cass R. TheAvailability Heuristic, Intuitive Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Climate Change.
accepted: Special Volume, Climatic Change.
Papers being prepared for submission as of October 31, 2005
Baron, Jonathan. Thinking about global warming
Bazerman, Max H. Climate Change as a Predictable Surprise
Jamieson, Dale. An American Paradox
Krosnick, Jon A. The Origins and Consequences of Democratic Citizens’ Policy Agendas
Lorenzoni, Irene and Nick Pidgeon. Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives
McDaniels, Timothy L. Exploring Risk Perception and Cooperative Learning as Descriptive and
Prescriptive Decision Frames for Climate Change
Viscusi, W. Kip and Joni Hersch. The Generational Divide in Support for Climate Change Policies:
European Evidence
Viscusi, W. Kip and Richard J. Zeckhauser. How People Assess and Value the Risks of Climate Change
Weber, Elke U. Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global
Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet)
Annual and Decadal Variability of the Carbon Cycle and Detection
and Attribution of Carbon and Associated Biogeochemical Trends
June 1-3, 2005
Chaired by Jorge L. Sarmiento
Cooperative Institute for Climate Science
Summary of Carbon Meeting
This document summarizes the results of a 2 ½ day workshop that was organized by the Cooperative
Institute on Climate Science (CICS) on the topic:
Annual and Decadal Variability of the Carbon Cycle and Detection and Attribution of
Carbon and Associated Biogeochemical Trends
The meeting was held on 1 to 3 June, 2005, at Princeton University. The purpose of the meeting was to
review progress in our understanding of the global carbon cycle, and to discuss future research priorities,
with the emphasis on variability and detection and attribution of trends. Attached is a list of attendees and
the final agenda of the meeting. The primary organizers were Richard Feely, Jorge Sarmiento and Pieter
Tans.
The meeting began with a set of science highlight presentations on the first morning, followed in the early
afternoon by a discussion of NOAA programmatics led by Dave Hofmann. The rest of the first day and
all of the second day were dedicated to a set of presentations on inverse modeling, atmospheric
observations, ocean observation, and prognostic modeling, and included plenty of time set aside for
discussion. The purpose of these talks was to expose the group to the most recent observational, inverse
modeling, and forward modeling results, and to where the most important gaps in our understanding and
opportunities for scientific breakthroughs lie. In addition to the more senior investigators and program
managers present, the audience included a large number of graduate students and post-docs who later
reported that they found the presentations to be highly instructive and that they appreciated the
opportunity to get an overview of where the field is at present.
At the end of the presentations on the second day, and continuing through the morning of the third day,
the focus of the meeting turned to a broad ranging discussion of the major research issues, data and
modeling gaps, and what is needed for a better understanding of the carbon cycle and how we can take
advantage of our joint capabilities within NOAA and associated groups to push forward on resolving
them. The discussion began with a review of milestones that NOAA must achieve within the next year or
so. These include:
(1) An annual update on the magnitude of the US carbon sink, the first of which is due in
September, 2005. NOAA scientists have been asked to develop some metric that provides a
measure of the uncertainty in the carbon sink. The carbon sink is reported to be about ±0.6
Pg C/yr at present and it is the goal that this will be improved by ~50% during the lifetime of
the NOAA Carbon Cycle Research Program.
(2) The decadal uptake of carbon by the North Atlantic and North Pacific, with the uncertainty in
this reduced by ~50% during the lifetime of the NOAA Carbon Cycle Research Program.
(3) Analysis of the interannual variability in the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
(4) An assessment of the carbon component of the global ocean observing system with a
proposed metric for the success and improvement of the measurements achievable by the year
2012.
(5) An earth system model ready to run scenarios during FY06 (October ’05 to September ’06).
The discussion of NOAA milestones was followed by a more specific discussion of North American flux
maps and what will be needed in order to improve our ability to develop such maps. Among the items
discussed were the following:
(1) Plans by Wouter to produce the first NOAA North American flux map by September 2005
are on track.
(2) A discussion of the importance of improved information on ignition frequency and fires
needed to explain interannual variability.
(3) The need for fine resolution data sets on fossil fuel emissions, with a promise by Gloor and
Crevoisier to produce a virtual data set using information such as from night time lighting.
(4) A discussion of plans for an effort led by Pacala and others to develop a new inverse
modeling approach aimed at improving land biosphere models.
(5) Identification of major scientific issues that hinder the development of land models including
an improved understanding of tree mortality, the water-CO2 feedback and its link to
evapotranspiration, and the frequency of ignition already mentioned above.
There was also an interesting discussion on the human dimensions problem, including the importance of
assessing vulnerabilities, the tie between fossil fuel emissions and air quality, and the importance of
linking our large-scale research interests to local issues.
The discussion turned next to air-sea flux maps. The overriding concern of the observationalists was the
need for a closer interaction between them and the ocean modeling community. It was felt that ocean
modeling needed to be higher on the priority list as a tool for interpretation of observations through
inverse modeling and improving our understanding of processes through forward modeling. A particular
need is for an ocean model with high resolution forced by realistic surface boundary conditions. The
major foci of the NOAA observational program are:
(1) Fluxes on a decadal time scale based primarily on repeat hydrographic sections. The first set
of such measurements obtained as part of the CLIVAR program show a considerably greater
spatial variability in the decadal uptake than had been expected. Decisions need to be made
about the appropriate way to use such observations in order to do global extrapolation.
(2) Seasonal and interannual variability based on ships of opportunity and buoys and including
the use of satellite observations for extrapolation. Model simulations, including assimilation
models, are needed in order to understand how anomalies develop and are propagated.
Present models disagree greatly with each other and appear to underestimate the observed
level of variability.
(3) Improving our understanding of gas exchange, with a particular focus on the Southern Ocean.
This is presently being tackled by a mix of in situ observations (Wanninkhof et al.) as well as
large scale inverse modeling of radiocarbon observations (Sweeney et al.).
(4) Coastal carbon. This program is presently in the initial stages of a basic research mode
focused on understanding how carbon functions in these regions.
The next topic discussed was global flux maps of both the ocean and land. Items covered included:
(1) The value of coupling ocean flux maps with the corresponding atmospheric CO2 observations
as in the joint inverse.
(2) The need for a clear strategy to improve our ability to better predict the future trajectory of
CO2 in the atmosphere including a better understanding of the putative large CO2 land
fertilization sink now being called more and more into question, and the need to better
understand how changes in ocean circulation and biology will affect the future ocean carbon
sink. Strategies for dealing with this include:
a. Improving our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms
b. The need to pin down the tropical carbon budget, including a search for additional
constraints on the Jacobson et al. joint inverse model finding of no CO2 fertilization
sink in the tropics.
c. A closer examination of the distribution of the ocean carbon sink between the
Southern Ocean and southern hemisphere temperate ocean, which is critical to the
result giving a low CO2 fertilization sink in the tropics.
d. The need to do carbon inventories in the Amazon, particularly given that the flux
tower and other methods have not resolved the issue of how large the carbon sink is
in tropical rain forests.
The final topic discussed was the remarkable recent findings regarding temporal variability of
atmospheric greenhouse gases during the Holocene, with evidence that there may have been considerable
anthropogenic impacts for thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. Jim White’s presentation
on his carbon-13 measurements in CH4 during this period excited considerable interest. White
commented during the discussion that the paleo-community is already looking at this issue and that it
would be good to get the carbon community together with them. Some of the scientific issues/challenges
that came up during the discussion included:
(1) The overriding issue is to determine whether or not the response of the carbon system to
climate change is capable of non-linear abrupt change that could have a significant impact on
the greenhouse gas budgets. There is clear evidence of such changes during the ice ages, but
during the Holocene, the challenge is to understand how the signals could have been so small
despite the evidence for significant climate change.
(2) A way of focusing research on the above issue would be to ask what it would take in order to
reproduce the observed CH4 signal and other observations from this time such as charcoal in
soils, pollen maps, etc. It was felt that taking on this challenge would likely require a good
size group of observationalists and modelers.
In conclusion, the greatest value of this meeting was that it brought together a wide range of
observationalists and modelers working in the ocean and atmosphere, as well as on land; and on all time
scales from seasonal to glacial/interglacial. Correspondingly, the most urgent future needs that were
identified by the discussions were for a closer coordination of efforts between the scientists working in
these different areas. Specific needs include:
(1) Scheduling regular annual meetings to bring together all the scientists working on the carbon
cycle within NOAA and in associated research programs such as in the cooperative institutes, and
the need for a carbon steering team to maintain continuity between the annual meetings.
(2) Development of a closer coordination between those working from the ocean side to estimate airsea fluxes and those working with atmospheric observations to produce CO2 flux maps over both
the ocean and land. Results shown at the meeting give dramatically different land flux
distributions when oceanic constraints are used along with atmospheric constraints.
(3) Development of high-resolution ocean carbon models and data analysis methods to assist in
improving ocean sampling design and to aid in the interpretation of the sparse oceanic
observations.
(4) Closer coordination between those working with terrestrial models and observations, and the
atmospheric observationalists, in order to improve estimates of land-atmosphere fluxes; and to
improve our understanding of critical terrestrial processes such as tree mortality, fire ignition
frequency, and the water-CO2 feedback.
(5) Initiate research on the Holocene and ice age carbon cycle in order to determine the causes of
abrupt carbon cycle changes during the ice ages, and to determine why the atmospheric CO2 and
other carbon cycle parameters have been so remarkably constant during the Holocene.
J. L. Sarmiento
4 July, 2005
Professional Development Summer Institute in Weather and
Climate
July 11-12, 2005
Taught by Steve Carson
Cooperative Institute for Climate Science
Professional Development Summer Institute in Weather and Climate
July 11-22, 2005
In support of the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science’s (CICS) intent to train the next generations to
deal with the increasing complexity of understanding and predicting climate, CICS collaborated with a
Princeton University professional development institute for New Jersey teachers, known as QUEST.
QUEST is a long-standing summer program led by Princeton University’s Teacher Preparation Program.
The two-week Weather and Climate unit, July 11-22, 2005, was for teachers in third through sixth grades
and offered a wide range of inquiry-based experiences through which the teachers could develop an
understanding of atmospheric processes and learn methods to teach about weather and climate. The unit
was developed and taught by Dr. Steven Carson, formerly a scientist and Outreach Coordinator at the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), and is currently a middle school science teacher in
Princeton.
The unit began with experiments and measurements involving pressure, temperature and humidity. A
variety of activities were used to develop understanding of how energy from the sun is distributed over
the earth, the seasons, the ways in which heat is transferred, and the basis and importance of the
greenhouse effect. Many of those ideas were then brought together through the demonstration of the
principles of cloud formation and the conditions that produce wind. Experiments demonstrating the
Coriolis effect served as a basis to understand global circulation of the atmosphere and the generation of
tropical cyclones. Hands on activities were used to develop explanations for lightning and tornadoes.
Dr. R. Wetherald, a guest speaker from GFDL, further drew on the topics studied to discuss research and
modeling concerning causes and consequences of global warming.
During the second week the drawing of
isotherms on maps of monthly average
temperature was used to develop ideas of
climate vs. weather and relate the patterns to
principles developed in the first week. Weather
conditions and patterns were further explored
through drawing isotherms and plotting fronts,
examining a variety of maps available on the
internet, and learning the meaning of forecast
terminology. More quantitative experiments
were done with the distribution of light energy
over the earth and with different ways to
measure and express humidity. These were
related to models of weather and climate.
Dr. Robert Wanton, a guest speaker from the Mount Holly Forecast Office of the National Weather
Service provided further insight into data collection and forecasting. The formation of snow crystals and
light and color in the atmosphere were also explored.
The program gave teachers an understanding of the basic principles behind weather and climate and the
integration of those principles with other dimensions of climate change.
PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Week One – 17 teachers in grades 3-6 from the
following school districts:
2 from Bordentown
2 from Hillsborough
1 from Lawrence Township
2 from Montgomery Township
2 from Princeton Township
3 from South Brunswick
4 from Trenton
1 from West Windsor-Plainsboro
Week Two – 15 teachers (same as above with
the exception of 1 from Hillsborough and 1 from
Lawrence Township)
25% participation from high poverty school
district (Trenton)
FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS:
“Dr. Steve Carson was exceptionally attentive…fabulous…excellent…extremely knowledgeable.
He did a wonderful job of explaining concepts and making it easy to understand. Steve was able to find
different ways to illustrate concepts and clear up misconceptions.”
“Two weeks of professional development was great, allowing time for reflection, understanding
connections and refinement of content understanding. The time allowed the understanding of “big” ideas
in week one and then application to more detailed concepts in the second week. I enjoyed the
combination of inquiry activities, hands-on experiments, lecture and discussion. We had all the materials
we needed.”
“I was able to apply the concepts and knowledge immediately.”
“I was so impressed – the best workshop I have ever been part of …I can’t think of any
weaknesses.”