Are We Moving into Another Era of 'Abrupt' Climate Change?
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 05.14.08
Image courtesy of NOAA
Will the next large-scale manifestation of global warming prove to be just another blip in time or, as Mike Tidwell put it in a recent Orion piece, a violent "snap" -- signaling a fundamental shift in our planet's climate? The idea, also advanced by noted environmental writer Fred Pearce in his latest book, has everything to do with what scientists call "abrupt" climate change.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is currently seeking public comments for revision of its synthesis and assessment report, defines abrupt climate change as: "A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems."
The notion of abrupt climate change has been in the news again of late, with scientists and writers connecting the dots to point out that a crucial tipping point, or "snap," may not be far off in the making. As Tidwell notes in his piece, decrying talk of climate "snaps" and tipping points as alarmist rhetoric is no longer a valid proposition -- especially in light of the past year's events:
A climate snap? Really? It sounds so much like standard fear-mongering and ecohyperbole. But here’s proof: One of the most prestigious scientific bodies in the world, the group that just shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for its climate work, predicted fourteen months ago that unchecked global warming could erase all of the Arctic Ocean’s summertime ice as early as 2070. Then, just two months later, in April 2007, a separate scientific panel released data indicating that the 2070 mark was way off, suggesting that ice-free conditions could come to the Arctic as early as the summer of 2030. And as if this acceleration weren’t enough, yet another prediction emerged in December 2007. Following the year’s appalling melt season, in which vast stretches of Arctic ice the size of Florida vanished almost weekly at times, a credible new estimate from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, indicated there could be zero—zero—summer ice in the Arctic as early as 2013.
And here's what the Climate Science Program's report had to say on the issue:
This report considers progress in understanding four types of abrupt change in the paleoclimatic record that stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that if they were to recur, they pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt: (1) rapid change in glaciers, ice sheets and hence sea level; (2) widespread and sustained changes to the hydrologic cycle; (3) abrupt change in the northward flow of warm, salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean associated with the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC); and (4) rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins.
So what does this report tell us about abrupt climate change? For one thing, though the warning signs are starting to appear, the authors, Peter Clark from Oregon State University and Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, remain conservative in their projections -- particularly with respect to predictions of future abrupt events.
The report provides a fascinating insight into the current state of climate science and makes some fairly pessimistic predictions about potential long-term trends in weather patterns and climactic phenomena. The slowing down of the ocean conveyor belt (by about 25-30% by century's end) and rapid rise in permafrost methane emissions pose some significant threats with possible large-scale ramifications for the global climate. The report's executive summary, which makes for an interesting (if disturbing, at times) read, can be seen here.
While it's still too early to say what climate "snaps" the future holds -- and, for that matter, if and when those currently projected will take place -- we certainly can't just let the existing warning signs (Arctic melting, surging methane emissions, etc) pass us by without action. Whether that means geo-engineering, as Tidwell advocates, or pushing for drastic emissions cuts along the lines of Bill McKibben's 350.org effort, there is much room for improvement.
NOAA, which has a great summary of the science behind abrupt climate change, says that abrupt climate change is a "reality" and that it will happen again. How and when it will happen (and going by the data, the trends don't seem favorable) remains open to question, however.
Via ::Orion Magazine: Snap into Action for the Climate (magazine)
See also: ::Fossilized Gnat Heads Point to Past Climate Change Incidents, ::The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
Does this chart suggest that while carbon correlates with temperature increases, human impact does not? And does the cycle of climate warming and cooling seem very predictable and not in correlation with human population? Maybe there is nothing for us to do but survive.
Does that meant that we have little control over the warming of the planet? I am confused.
ugh, abrupt climate change is very disturbing. I may have to update the timeline on my blog for the sea level rise maps
:http://climateatlas.wordpress.com
-PB
End of the world in 5 minutes, details on the 11:00 news. In my opinion, any one who thinks Global warming is real, is KooKoo for CooCoo Puffs.
@Ray:
You do realize that if you don't believe in climate change you are going up against the most well-respected and prestigious scientific organizations on the planet, right? If so, what are your credentials?
The sky is falling!! Global Warming...what is the 'perfect temp' for our earth? We just went through the 3rd coldest winter in the past 100 years. There are average temputures, but nothing that is normal. I'd much rather be warmer than colder.
So... for 400000 years the climate changed predictably every 50000 years or so? Seems silly to be pouring billions down the black hole of trying to stop human caused climate change.
Didn't I see a recent report of how the arctic ice pack this winter is as big as ever?
Have a great day.
LJ
For doubters of climate change, and those wondering about whether it is the right thing to invest in measures to slow it down, check this video:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&feature=related
And for those interested in how the IPCC works (or doesn't!) the following visdeo is very enlightening... it's about 'non-linear positive feedbacks' and the Apollo-Gaia Project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPxunJwCjP4
Sound stuff, hey?
John Cossham, York UK
@LJ
Where's the source? I did a Google news search, and, surprise surprise, the only results I found were in relation to global climate change and the fact that it's melting.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=arctic+ice&btnG=Search+News
On a related note: the US Department of Interior recently listed the polar bear as "threatened." The cause? It's habitat was rapidly shrinking.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qwD90M1L580
@Kevin
"Global warming" doesn't mean just warm weather. And it doesn't mean even warming either. It means the poles are likely to warm much faster than the tropics, and that moderately arid (i.e. barely arable) regions will become deserts more quickly. Desertification is a problem for us all. It primarily is occurring in developing countries, but if you haven't noticed, rich countries don't create nearly as many international security problems (except, as in Iraq, by creating even more unstable impoverished countries).
If everyone in Iran was rich, do you think they'd want to destroy the world that made them rich?
To the several deniers that have posted so far: you are missing that thin red and very vertical line at the very right of the chart. You know, the one that is twice as high as any other CO2 peak in the last 400,000 years.
Its sort of like the atmosphere flatlining.
Wow, we have some ripe minds in here.
There's a better than even chance zero ice will occur THIS summer.
Rich, don't waste keystrokes on the likes of Ray. Asking for credentials from someone who uses cereal metaphors for ad hominem statements is like looking for integrity at the EPA.
LJ, you saw nothing of the kind, unless you subscribe to "Fantasy News".
John, if someone like Ray should show credentials, so should Al Gore--and honorary degrees don't count.
It's amazing; I've expressed my doubts before in many places about whether or not climate change is human-controlled, and have based my opinion by reading the work of people much more intelligent than I. For that reason, I am usually dismissed as a 'denier' and an 'idiot.'
There's not even a consensus about what's going to happen next, but data that doesn't support the current Mathusian crisis scenario is suppressed, and a great deal of hand-waving and bluster is presented as 'proof' and name-calling is acceptable--provided it's in support of manmade climate change.
So let's just stop, dust ourselves off, set aside the manmade global warming agenda, and all agree that pollution is a bad thing and should be stopped ASAP. Hey, wouldn't it be neat to be able to go to Denver, CO, go to the top of the state Capitol building and see the mountains you're supposed to see? Aren't national security, food security, and water security important? Isn't energy conservation important? Yeah, I think so too. So let's get to work on that!
John, if someone like Ray should show credentials, so should Al Gore--and honorary degrees don't count.
It's amazing; I've expressed my doubts before in many places about whether or not climate change is human-controlled, and have based my opinion by reading the work of people much more intelligent than I. For that reason, I am usually dismissed as a 'denier' and an 'idiot.'
There's not even a consensus about what's going to happen next, but data that doesn't support the current Mathusian crisis scenario is suppressed, and a great deal of hand-waving and bluster is presented as 'proof' and name-calling is acceptable--provided it's in support of manmade climate change.
So let's just stop, dust ourselves off, set aside the manmade global warming agenda, and all agree that pollution is a bad thing and should be stopped ASAP. Hey, wouldn't it be neat to be able to go to Denver, CO, go to the top of the state Capitol building and see the mountains you're supposed to see? Aren't national security, food security, and water security important? Isn't energy conservation important? Yeah, I think so too. So let's get to work on that!
I want to simply say, that at this late date, I can't believe the deniers of human caused climate change. Willful ignorance!
READ the chart and pay attention to what's being said: For the last 400,000 years, carbon dioxide has cycled as high as 350ppm. It's now at 387 and we're struggling with the notion of slowing its rate of increase!
Please allow me to introduce you to Mr. Google:
A Malthusian catastrophe is a return to subsistence-level conditions as a result of population growth outpacing agricultural production.
As if it was ripped from the headlines. Inform yourself first, spew later.
Everyone's worried about increasing CO2 effecting the climate. What I'm worried about is the fact that I can't breathe CO2! There won't be anyone left to enjoy the hot weather if we keep filling the atmosphere with gases we can't breathe.
Does anybody know if there's been any research on the effects of increasing CO2 and levels of O2? I mean, extra CO2 and the oxygen's gotta go somewhere.
Everyone's worried about increasing CO2 effecting the climate. What I'm worried about is the fact that I can't breathe CO2! There won't be anyone left to enjoy the hot weather if we keep filling the atmosphere with gases we can't breathe.
Does anybody know if there's been any research on the effects of increasing CO2 and levels of O2? I mean, extra CO2 and the oxygen's gotta go somewhere.