Sarawak Campus

Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Science

Higher Education Division

Tutorial 3: Climate Change

CVE10006
Sustainable Design
(Semester 2, 2015)
Version date (27 August, 2015)

Student Name:

Student Identification Number:

SCORE

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 1

1. Figure 1 presents data on the state of the debate surrounding climate change. Use this figure to
answer the following questions. [Total 5 marks]

a) Amongst those who have and understand the facts surrounding climate change, is there a debate
around its existence and the cause of it? [1 mark]
No

b) How does the media portrayal of climate change relate to our scientific understanding and certainty
of it? [1 mark]
The media portrays climate change as uncertain and gives equal time to deniers with no
facts or credentials as it does to scientists backed by hard facts and evidence

c) How does the publics view on the existence and causes of climate change compare to that of
scientists and the portrayal of the issue in the media? Is the publics view on the issue consistent
with the facts? Is global warming open to opinion? Why or why not? [3 marks]
The public seems to be swayed by the portrayal of the issue in the media
No
No. The facts are in. Whether one believes in climate change or not, it exists and humans
are the cause.

2. Over time, the views of the IPCC on whether or not humans are responsible for the observed warming
of Earths climate have changed. Figure 2 summarized these changes. Use this figure to answer the
following questions. [Total 5 marks]

a) What was the IPCCs confidence that humans are the main cause of global warming in 1990? [1
mark]
The IPCC did not quantify their confidence in humans being the cause at this time

b) What was the IPCCs confidence that humans are the main cause of global warming in 2001? [1
mark]
The IPCC estimated that there was a 67-90% chance (likely) that humans are the main
cause of global warming

c) What was the IPCCs confidence that humans are the main cause of global warming in 2013? [1
mark]
The IPCC estimated that there is at least a 95% chance (extremely likely) that humans are
the main cause of global warming

d) Based on these results, what do you think the IPCCs confidence that humans are the cause of
global warming in their next forthcoming report? [1 mark]
The IPCC is likely to assert that it is certain or near certain (at least 98-99% chance) that
humans are the main cause of global warming

e) Does the IPCCs view of the major cause of climate change agree with the views of the vast majority
of the worlds climate scientists, the media, or the public? [1 mark]
The vast majority of the worlds climate scientists

3. The frequency of natural disasters since 1980 is summarized in Figure 3. Use this figure to answer the
following questions. [Total 10 marks]

a) How has the number of geophysical events changed since 1980? Are these disaster types likely to
be linked to climate change? [2 marks]
They are largely unchanged and are unrelated to climate change as they are caused by
geological processes not climatic processes

b) How have the numbers of meteorological events changed since 1980? Are these disaster types
likely to be linked to climate change? [2 marks]
They have increased markedly.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 2

 Yes, these events are likely linked to climate change.

c) How have the numbers of hydrological events changed since 1980? Are these disaster types likely
to be linked to climate change? [2 marks]
They have increased markedly.
Yes, these events are likely linked to climate change.

d) How have the numbers of climatological events changed since 1980? Are these disaster types likely
to be linked to climate change? [2 marks]
They have increased markedly.
Yes, these events are likely linked to climate change.

e) How would you summarize the findings of this figure? [2 marks]

This figure shows that all climatological related disasters are increasing in frequency while
those that are not related to climate are not increasing.
This provides strong evidence that global warming is driving an increase in disaster
frequency.

4. There are a wide range of potential global warming impacts and these will change in type and severity
based on the level of warming that occurs. Figure 4 summarizes some of these impacts. Use this figure
to answer the following questions. [Total 5 marks]

a) How does the severity of most climate change impacts change as the level of warming increases?
[1 mark]
The severity of most impacts increase markedly at higher temperature increases

b) Are the impacts listed in Figure 4 largely positive or negative? [1 mark]

Negative

c) Which of the impacts listed here should we be concerned about? Based on these data, would you
suggest that climate change is something we should be worried about? Are the impacts that will be
felt if we do nothing and attain warming of 5C much worse that those if we take some action and
limit warming to 2C? [3 marks]
All of the listed impacts have potentially serious consequences for humans and ecosystems.
Given this, climate change appears to be a major concern.
If we do nothing, the risks of significant negative consequences increase dramatically
suggesting we should make every effort to limit warming to no more than 2C.

5. Not all people on Earth are equally vulnerable to climate change. Figure 5a presents a climate change
vulnerability index with risks in this case associate with significant threats to human health and
wellbeing (rather than only economic costs). Figure 5b shows countrys commitments to take action on
climate change. Use this figure to answer the following questions. [Total 10 marks]

a) Which parts of the world are most at risk from climate change? [1 mark]
Central Africa, India, South East Asia

b) How much of the climate change problem can be traced to these countries? [1 mark]
Very little most of these countries are not big emitters of fossil fuels

c) What is the relationship (if any) between a countrys risk to climate change and its willingness to
take action against it? [2 marks]
Generally speaking countries at high risk are committed to taking action.
In terms of those least at risk, some, like European countries are committed to climate action
while others like the USA and Australia are not.

d) The 10 biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses (together accounting for over 69% of global
emissions) are (in order from highest to lowest): China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, South
Korea, Canada, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. Which of these nations fall into each climate change

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 3

 action category listed in Figure 5b? Do you think the biggest polluters are doing enough to combat
climate change? Given this, what do you think our chances are of limiting global warming to 2C or
less? [6 marks]
Very good Japan, South Korea, Indonesia
Good China, India, Germany
Average Russia
Poor None
Very poor USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia
No, many of the biggest polluters are doing very little to combat climate change. Unless all of
these nations increase their efforts, we unlikely to limit global warming to 2C or less

6. Figure 6 presents some likely outcomes should CO2 attain an emissions peak sometime in the next 50
years followed by a major reduction over the next few 100s of years. [Total 6 marks]

a) What happens to global temperatures after the CO2 emissions peak is passed? [1 mark]
They continue to increase for more than 100 years before stabilizing

b) Which takes longer to stabilize: atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or global temperatures? [1 mark]
Global temperatures

c) What happens to global sea levels once the CO2 emissions peak is passed? [1 mark]
The continue to rise for millenia

d) How long does it takes for sea level rise to cease after CO2 emissions are reduced to very low
levels? [1 mark]
1000s of years

e) How do the relative contributions to sea level rise from thermal expansion and melting ice compare
in the first 1000 years or so after the CO2 emissions peak is passed? [1 mark]
In the first 1000 years, thermal expansion contributes most to sea level rise

f) How do the relative contributions to sea level rise from thermal expansion and melting ice compare
after the first 1000 years or so after the CO2 emissions peak is passed? [1 mark]
After the first 1000 years, melting ice contributes most to sea level rise

7. Table 1 presented data as to the volume of ice in some of earths major ice sheets and glaciers and the
potential sea level rises that could occur if these melted. Assume (as the data suggest) that 40% of sea
level rise can be attributed to thermal expansion and 60% to ice melt. [Total 2 marks]

a) Assuming these percentages would hold into the future, if all of the ice volumes presented in Table
1 were to melt, what would be the total expected rise in global sea levels? [1 mark]
About 130 m (=80.3/0.6)

b) Greenland is known to be melting at an accelerated rate at present, even beyond what has been
predicted by the IPCC. If Greenland alone where to melt in the next 100 years or so, what would be
the likely rise in sea level, taking into account rises from thermal expansion as well as melting ice?
[1 mark]
About 11 m (=6.55/0.6)

8. Many possible geotechnical solutions have been proposed as solutions to climate change to prevent
the need for a shift away from fossil fuels. The effectiveness and costs associated with some of these
are presented in Figure 7. Use this figure to answer the following questions. [Total 8 marks]

a) Climate change is a major issue that needs action now to avert the worst impacts. Which of the
proposed geo-engineering solutions could be rolled out in the next few years (not decades or
centuries which would likely be too late)? What is the cooling potential of these solutions? Are there
potentially negative consequences of using these strategies? If so, what are they? Is this strategy
cost effective relative to cutting emissions? [4 marks]

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 4

 Aerosols only
Very high
Yes. Risk of ozone depletion, unknown weather effects and a failure to prevent ocean
acidification.
Yes

b) Of the remaining strategies, which are cost effective relative to cutting emissions? What is the
cooling potential of these solutions? Are there potentially negative consequences of using these
strategies? If so what are they? [2 marks]
Reflective crops, cooling potential is low, needs lots of land, fails to prevent ocean
acidification
Foresting, cooling potential is high, needs lots of land

c) Given the suite of possible geotechnical solutions, their cooling potential, costs, readiness and
potential impacts or limitations, do you think cutting emissions or employing one or more
geotechnical solutions is the best way to deal with global warming? [2 marks]
Cutting emissions is generally more cost effective and less harmful than most of the
geotechnical solutions.
This would seem to be the best option perhaps supported by land use engineering options.

9. One of the easiest to assess financial impacts of climate change is the cost of sea level rise. This is
because assets within a certain distance/elevation from the coast can be readily identified. Figure 8
summarizes the costs to Australia should a 1.1 m rise in sea level occur (a near certainty unless global
warming can be limited to 2C or less). Use this figure to answer the following questions. [Total 5
marks]

a) According to the lecture the estimated cost over 10 years to transform Australia to run on 100%
renewable energy is $370 Billion. How does this compare to the cost of a very likely sea level rise of
1.1 m by 2100 with current climate change abatement commitments? Does it make a good
economic sense for Australia to take strong action to avert climate change? Modelling suggests that
were Australia to achieve 50% renewable energy b 2030 (Labours current plan) the cost would be
only $65 Billion or less and we would have helped ensure that sea levels do not rise by 1.1 m by
2100. Given this, does it make good economic sense to adopt Labours plan? [3 marks]
It is about 1.5 times as expensive to move to 100% renewable energy. Based on these data
alone. No.
Yes. The cost of preventing sea level rise with minimum effort far exceeds the damages that
would occur if we do nothing.

b) According to the lecture the total cost of climate related impacts by 2100 is $1.2 Trillion. Using these
new figures, would you answers to part a) change? How? [2 marks]
The cost converting to 100% renewable energy is substantially lower than the cost of doing
nothing. So, yes. It makes good economic sense.
Labours plan is even more attractive if we use these data.

10. Figure 9 compares the cost of taking climate action to that of taking no action in terms of likely damages
caused by climate related disasters from now until 2100 and 2200. [Total 3 marks]

a) According to these data, is it more cost effective to take action against climate or to let the climate
change and pay for the damages? [1 mark]
To take action is cheaper

b) What is the estimated cost or savings to the global economy by the year 2100 of taking climate
action? [1 mark]
About $10 trillion is savings

c) What is the estimated cost or savings to the global economy by the year 2200 of taking climate
action? [1 mark]
About $40 trillion is savings

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 5

 Figure 1. The debate around human caused global warming.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 6

Figure 2. The change in certainty that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of global warming by the
IPCC over time.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 7

 Figure 3. Changes in the frequencies of different categories of natural disasters since 1980.

Figure 4. Global warming impacts expected at varying levels of warming.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 8

 a)

b)

Figure 5. Climate change vulnerability index estimated 2014 (a) and countrys commitments to climate
action (b).

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 9

Figure 6. Responses of sea-level, temperature and CO2 to current anthropogenic climate change.

Table 1. Potential sea level rises from melting ice.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 10

 Figure 7. Assessment of the cost and effectiveness of geoengineering solutions to
climate change.

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 11

 Figure 8. The cost to the Australian economy of a 1.1 metre rise in sea level.

Figure 9. Comparing the cost of climate mitigation against climate damages.

# End of Document #

Copyright 2015 @ FECS Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Page 12