A Victory For 2014

As 2014 draws to a close it is important to look at arguably the greatest victory of the year for climate change... of course i'm referring to the United States and China coming together to form an agreement on tackling climate change! In case you missed it, the story is summed up quite nicely by the following news report from CNN...

"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change" -(well duh!) Barack Obama, 2014 

The historic deal was signed November 12th and some of the main points include:

• America to double the speed of their current pollution reduction trajectory
• America's new aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025
• US and China will continue to work together on the CO2 capture and storage technology that will help clean up coal burning for power plants, this will be achieved through increasing funds to the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Centre
• China hopes to peak CO2 emissions and increase the use of non fossil fuel energy to 20% by 2030 (Biello, 2014)

The agreement and progress made through this agreement hopefully means that the US and China will get involved in the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris next year, and sign an agreement with the rest of the world's leaders. It would be the first time either nation has committed on paper to reducing emissions. Very promising stuff for 2015!

The Need For Change: Fire!

There have been two major forest fires in Northern America in 2014, a light relief compared to the five major forest fires of 2013 and the seven of 2012. The first in 2014 was in Washington and within four days of the fire starting 300 homes had been destroyed, the second was in British Columbia and was the largest in British Columbia since 1982 and destroyed over 300,000 acres of land. This is obviously a problem. Forest fires are a big problem when they have the ability to destroy so much land and harm so many people and the effect of changing climate on forest fires is something that needs to be considered.

Forest Fire, Bitterroot National Forest, USA. 2000.
Source: Reddit

Wildfires have a large range of contributing factors including temperature, humidity, wind and the location of lightening strikes. However human factors such as fuel and land management can contribute to wildfires too. (Westerling, 2003) The atmospheric conditions conductive for wild fires are expected to change with climate change - thus the patterns and frequency of wildfires are also subject to change. But how?

A recent study by Tang et al to be published early January next year has looked into the effects of climate change on the atmospheric conditions that are associated with wildfires. They've done this using simulations from multiple regional climate models and used a comparison between the current climate and the predicted climate of 2050 to look at the differences. To compare the atmospheric conditions Tang et al have used the Haines Index.

Definition: Haines Index - "a measure of how conductive the atmosphere is to potential extreme or erratic fire behaviour based on atmospheric stability and moisture" (Haines, 1988) hence can be split into two parts a humidity component and a stability component. A value of 5 or 6 on the index signals a high level of potential for wildfires. (Tang, 2015)

The models show that by 2050 there is relatively little change in spatial and seasonal patterns - meaning regions for erratic wildfires at present will remain regions for erratic wildfires in the future. Key regions have been highlighted by the paper such as Intermountain West, High Plains and the Gulf Coast region, hopefully the results of the simulations will have some influence over future land use planning in these high risk areas to help accommodate with the upcoming climate change. The models also identified an increase in the percentage of days with a high HI index and also an increase in duration of successive days with high HI indexes. (Tang, 2015) These increases in HI index are representative of an increased risk of wildfires, meaning with increased climate change there can be expected higher chance of wildfires. Hence providing mounting evidence for the detrimental effect of climate change in the US and the need for a big change!

Source: Giphy

A Christmas Guide

Funnily enough I found out that one of my flatmates, a third year UCL biologist and also a proud Canadian, doesn't believe in global warming. She believes it's happening but the idea that humans are behind it she shot down and just flat out doesn't believe. She's a scientists though, how can't she see the evidence? She doesn't believe it and there's no amount of arguing my friends and I can do to convince her, we're simply avoiding the subject for the rest of our tenancy.

Here's a fun, quick guide to help you all deal with climate change deniers over the holidays...

Hope it helps!

Source: Giphy

Tipping Elements

Previously discussed was the idea of tipping points – it was briefly mentioned the idea of tipping elements however I did not elaborate on this.  So briefly I will look into some of the most important tipping elements now to give you an idea of where they can be found! I will explain why each one may be a potential tipping element and its importance in the earth’s system.

Arctic Sea-Ice: simply, as sea ice melts a darker ocean surface is exposed so more radiation can be absorbed. This amplifies warming! This provides a positive feedback system on climate. (Lenton, 2008) Data shows that both summer and winter sea ice are declining at present, with large areas showing a great deal of thinning. (Stroeve, 2007) Is there a cut off point for the melting of sea-ice that will be the tipping point?!

Source: NASA
The 2010 shot of the Arctic Sea Ice. This year showed a maximum in sea ice that was unexpected from the trend of the previous years, however was still below the 30 year average. (NASA, 2010)

Greenland Ice Sheet: warming of the ice sheet at its periphery lowers the altitude of the ice and as a result increases the surface temperature. Again this leads to positive feedback, in addition there is potential that this could cause the ice sheet to disappear. (Lenton, 2008) The IPCC (2007) have put this threshold for the disappearance of the ice sheet between 1.9°C-4.6°C above pre-industrial levels – one we can all agree isn’t too far off the horizon…

Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC): The THC plays a large role in the rapid climate changes that have been recorded in Greenland in its historic records.  Should a large amount of water or heat enter the North Atlantic, the North Atlantic Deep Water formation and the connected Atlantic THC will be caused to shut off. All models of this have so far showed a collapse of convection and a tipping point being crossed, thus having a large effect on climate. (Lenton, 2008) The IPCC (2007) claim this is unlikely to occur anytime before 2100 (not long in the grand scheme of things) and that any subsequent transition would take more than a century. (so maybe let’s not worry too much about this, who knows?)

It is the uncertainty in the tipping points that make them more worrying. However with increased research several tipping elements have been identified and the warning signs for approaching tipping points are becoming somewhat better understood. This does not make them any more promising for the future of the earth’s climate, there is still a quite desperate need to avoid them!

The Need For Change: Tipping Points

The United States is the second biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions; making it, by default, the second biggest contributor to global warming. But why should this matter and why should they change their ways?

Truth be told, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding climate change but something that is really worrying scientists is the idea of tipping points.

A tipping point is defined as a small change in forcing triggers that results in a nonlinear response in the dynamics of the climate system. These forcing triggers are defined as tipping elements and candiates for these include:
-melting of Greenland ice sheet
-dieback of the Amazon rainforest
-the shift of the West African monsoon
Recently, there has been research carried out into these tipping elements to strongly suggest an increased probablity of their occurance. Changing tipping points from a "high-impact low-probability" event to possibly "high-impact high-probability" events. (Lenton, 2011)

The melting of the Greenland Icesheet: Irreversible
A Tipping Element
Source: FFFound

Warning Signs

These events can manifest several early warning signs ranging from simply the knowledge that it could occur, through to predictions of the timings of events. The study of these warning signs have been carried out through the study of past events. These past events are characteristic of sharp climatic transitions from one state to another. For example 34 million years ago, the greenhouse-ice transition that showed the change in the earths climate from tropical to a state with ice-caps; to the 5000 year ago that showed a sudden climatic shift in Africa from a savanna-like climate to one of desert. The suggested explanatons for these climatic shifts studied have usually invoked the idea of a tipping point. (Dakos, 2008)

Through the study of these past shifts that have been thought to include tipping points it has providing climate scientists with indications of warning signs for these events. One of the prominent warning signs has been seen in the 'slwoing' of dynamic systems before a tipping point. The theoretical data given shows that "dynamical systems become 'slow' when a critical point is approached as conditions are gradually changing". (Dakos, 2008) For the scope of this blog and for the sake of my sanity, so I don't try and tackle with quantum physics, it can be concluded that dynamic systems become increasingly slow in their recovery from small peturbations. Despite research into this area, the restictions of climate models has meant there has yet to be any significant studies of slowing down before a shift in real data. However the Dakos paper did found significant evidence for this slowing down on modeled data from past climate shifts.

This general idea is one called bifurcations and it is the slow forcing past a bifurcation point that is analogous to that of a tipping point. This theory provides the greatest promise for an early warning indicator. The idea of slowing down in dynamic systems is one that has been around for a great deal of time but only recently been applied to climatic problems. (Lenton, 2011) The prcoess of bifurcation can be understood in then visualisation below. The circles represent the state of the climate and how it's repsonse to perbutations changes with proximaty to the bifurcation (tipping point). The final graph shows that with the state of the climate at a tipping point the response is to slip into a different state rather than recover.

A representation of bifurcation - Lenton, 2011

Warning systems are in place for several natural hazards already such a tsunamis and hurricanes, stressing the importance of these warning signs for tipping points. The UN has called for a comprehensive, globally integrated early warning system for all natural hazards and tipping points should definitely be included in this as the effects of crossing a tipping point will have serious implications on the human race and the earth system.

Timeline Take 2

This week brings the conclusion to the time line of political events as outlined in the Kevin Armitage, "State of Denial" paper. The timeline continues with the backlash from this IPCC report... 

Bad America! (source: http://giphy.com/)

 

1989- oil companies joined together to form the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). This lobbied against climate change legislation and started a media campaign against it, being helped in their efforts by a small group of scientists who received the funding for their reseach papers (BIAS!!!!)

1990- The US flatly rejects the IPCC report

1992-  'Earth Summit' held in Rio de Janeiro. Over 150 states signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Negotiations at this summit included targets for emission reductions and the economic inequality between industrialized and developing countries, calling for developed countries to pay a disproportionate amount towards combating climate change.

1992 - Appeal from 1,700 of the leading climate scientists stating plainly that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and begging for action to be taken. This statement recieved little attention in the US.

1995 - Second IPCC report held a stronger stance on climate change staring that there is a "discernable human influence on global climate", this drew widespread media attention however the right wing politics critised the report and the Clinton administration put relatively little effort into the global warming issue.

1997 - UN Nations Kyoto Conference on Climate Change - the conference nearly broke down due to the issues about power relationships between wealthy contries. The conference was 'saved' by the arrival of the US Vice president, Gove , who pushed through a comprimise that stated industrialized countries would cut emissions by 5.2%. Developing countries would be exempt from these cuts. The Clinton administration strongly disagreed with this and thus didn't push the treaty and America became omitted from reducing emissions - this furthur gave other countries excuses to continue with unsustainable practices

2000- McCright and Dunlap's paper was published, finding that 71% of the documents sampled by the right-wing politicans attempted to discredit the scientific evidence for global warming.

2001- the administration of George W. Bush rejected any significant reduction in CO2 emissions and thus publically renounced the Kyoto protocols.

2002 - National Academy of Sciences conclused that abrupt climate change is possible and global climate events could be alot closer than expected. US National Secruity released a report speculating the most extreme cases of climate change and hypothesised cases such a nuclear showdown of dwindling fresh water supplies and famine.

2004 - (August) Bush administration released a report that stated that CO2 was the most plausablie explanation for climate change. (this was kept pretty underwraps)

2005 - The New York Times confirmed the continuation of the Bush strategy of "denial" despite    the aforementioned report.

The paper finishes it's analysis in 2005 hence why the timeline stops here, but as we can see right-wing politics really ups it's game in their denial strategy. It seems as the evidence for global warming as caused by humans increases the back lash against environmentalism also increases. The campaign against global warming shows politicians manipulating data and in some cases even funding research to provide the evidence they need.

It's no wonder the citizens of the United States are so confused about global warming when there are so many mixed messages coming at them! In the ideology of balanced reporting, major influential media publications such as The New York Times would report climate change with equal coverage of the peer reviewed science and the reports of scientists who don't believe in the whole affair. Only in America!

 (source: http://giphy.com/)

~A Brief Interlude~

I was expecting my next post to be a continuation of the timeline of the United States resistance to the belief in global warming, followed by a few happy months worth of blog posts worth of change and what the US is now doing to support the issue. However something has come to my attention in the news that shows even in this fine year of 2014 the US are looking to take yet another step back in their stance on global warming.

The 2014 midterm elections has shown a storm in the Republicans control in the Senate. With things looking up for the Republicans, things aren't looking promising for the environment. At best the new congress now could seem disengaged from serious climate change issues, when now more than ever a decision needs to be reached. At worst the new Congress could actively oppose the environment and waste no time in their "pro-energy, pro-growth" agenda.

Senator James Inhofe (who features in my next timeline) is an Oklahoma Republican. His views on global warming are certainly interesting and to summarize his stance on the issue of global warming, I think we should all just reflect on the title of his 2010 book, "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future". Yep. This is the man who's most likely going to be leading the Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republican party takes control next year. So I can't even imagine what this will mean for the global warming issue.

Hopefully Obama can save the day though, stating "Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign" meaning that not all hope is lost. He might here be referring to the Keystone XL pipeline bill that Republicans will be pushing - this issue has been delayed for quite some time as it is a massive project to increase shipments of oil from Canada to the US.

Fingers crossed the Republicans show mercy for the environment, only time will tell!

Two Steps Forward One Step Back

A paper I have found particularly interesting in the subject of the US and climate change has been this one. As part of the paper they include several dates of events and whilst reading it I found myself being able to piece together quite a nice timeline of events that does seem to summarise political skeptisism of global warming in the States reasonably well. This week is going kick off with the promising start that was made for the US, and only dables breifly in some of the backlash towards global warming - whereas next week will be more representative of the denial of global warming that the paper and the idea for this blog rests on. For the sake of this blog I'm going to use this paper to create that timeline myself right here.


(Apologies for my poor computer skills, at least it's handmade and authentic)

 



The timeline show's a progression towards the acceptance of human actions as the main factor in global warming, with the White House's support shown clearly in the quote from George H. W. Bush. The end of this timeline show's where political lobbying has taken an effect and the caution mentioned in the IPCC report shows a significant step backwards especially with the backlash that follows in US politics. This IPCC report is where I'll kick off next week with an in depth look the backtrack in support from the US government and where this all really starts to go wrong!

A Quote

"I've been involved in a number of fields where there's a lay opinion and a scientific opinion. And in most case's, it's the lay community that is more exercised, more anxious... But, in the climate case, the experts -  the people who work with the climate models every day, the people who do ice cores - they are more concerned. they're going out of their way to say, 'Wake Up! This is not a good thing to be doing'"

Robert Socolow, 2005

Theoretical Physicist

The Rise of the Cool Skeptics

Off the back of that documentary (see previous post) Channel 4 received 758 calls and emails, with those in favour of the documentary outnumbering those complaining about it by six to one. With the documentary receiving that support in this country, one that I personally believe to be quite well scientifically grouded, it made me wonder the effects of global warming denial in America - somewhere that can often give the impression, despite being one of the world leaders, to be a bit behind the times.

I want to start just by looking at the general attitudes of American citizens toward to issue of global warming. To do so, I went to Gallup, an American research based company, famous for their public opinion polls. Their most recent poll towards the attitudes towards global warming was posted on April 22 of this year. I'll use this graph to briefly explain the three categories that the American citizens can be split into...

Concerned Believers: these attribute global warming (correctly) to human activity and contribution, they believe CO2 is driving the greenhouse effect.

Cool Skeptics: These are at the other end of the spectrum. They are not worried about the effect that humans are having on global warming and attribute the changes to natural causes (alike The Great Global Warming swindle)

Mixed Middle: Lie somewhere between the two groups

Alarmingly we can see in this graph the trends don't go exactly the way we want! The number of people not caring about global warming is increasing and the number of believers has decreased, however it has just reached the percentage it was at 14 years ago, showing no real progress. Over the next few weeks we will be exploring the reasons behind the "Cool Skeptics" stemming back from the 1970s and I'll be able to piece together a political timeline for America, in terms of global warming, for an easily accessible summary of the last 30 years!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

On the 8th March, 2007, 2.69 million people tuned into Channel 4 to watch a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Being only 13 at the time, I was not one of them. However having heard of it's controversial standing I decided to follow suit and watch it - and that's where this blog starts!

Hi, I'm Ellie! Admittedly I'm not a geographer but for the sake of this blog I'm going to try my hardest to be. I'm a Natural Sciences student in my third year at UCL, as part of my degree I look at the social and communicative aspect of science which is the aspect of global warming I would like to examine in this blog, and this is where the documentary comes into play!

If you have a spare 76 minutes, I would recommend a watch of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (featured below) however, if you don't, I'll briefly summarise it for you.

 

The British documentary undermines the key focus of the global warming argument - that increased CO2 is driving global warming. It tells the tale of how "many" scientists don't believe that humans are the cause of global warming and that the scientific basis for climate change is crumbling. The documentary then goes on to argue that the whole global warming debacle is a political activist movement and it acts to "kill the African dream to develop" aka the whole idea of global warming prevention is a method to stop the development of developing countries. It assures the audience with direct quotes from climate scientists of their vested interest to create a state of panic to drive money into their departments. The change in climate is explained away with the science that climate change always occurs periodically and we just happen to be going through a period of increase and this is simply a natural change.

This all seems absurd but the documentary is so cleverly edited and convincing it even had me doubting my beliefs!! (It didn't, but I can very much appreciate how a non-scientist would be convinced by the programme.)

This documentary is where the idea for my blog started - with the idea that some people don't believe in global warming at all or don't feel it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. I want to focus on one country in particular - The United States of America. This is one of the top world contributors to CO2 output (coming only second to China). I want to explore the initial idea of denial of climate change within America (the science vs the media aspect), explore the current government approaches to reducing their CO2 output and the general stance of America as a major player in the CO2 emission game. I will do this though the use of academic papers and hopefully some more fun mediums! I'm not sure where this blog is going to take me, but feel free to come along for the ride as we explore global warming across the pond!