Defining climate change terms

by Milan on March 23, 2010 in Climate change,Climate science,Ethics It is important to avoid carelessly lumping together things that are very different, especially in the language we use to discuss climate change. Likewise, it is important to avoid using the same term to mean different things. How then should we understand the terms dangerous, catastrophic, and runaway in relation to climate change? Each term should have a definition which is clear and comprehensible, and which does not obviously overlap with the definition of the others. That allows people to discuss the different levels without excess confusion about what people mean by things. As human beings burn fossil fuels and otherwise tinker with the planets carbon cycle, we produce an increasing amount of climate change. The extent of this change can be described as happening at different levels, either numerically or descriptively. This can be done in several technical ways.* While these are useful, I think there are three descriptive terms that are among the most useful, for distinguishing between future scenarios. They are defined not in relation to one number or another, but in terms of their overall effect on humanity and the Earth: Dangerous climate change Bad as it would be, this is the least serious level of warming I will define. Of course, your definition of dangerous depends on your interests and situation. Climate change is already dangerous for polar bears, Bangladesh, and small island states. For this term, I will adopt the definition that has become common among scientists and policy-makers: a mean temperature increase of more than 2C, compared with preindustrial temperatures. Basically, a world 2C hotter than the one that existed before we started seriously burning fossil fuels. Note that we have already created 0.74C of warming, according to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that some additional warming is inevitable on account of the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. This term already has importance in international law. The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the Kyoto Protocol extended, is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Catastrophic climate change I define this as warming at such a level that it threatens the continued existence of human civilization, for instance by radically altering regional weather patterns and putting massive strain on agricultural systems.

The exact temperature level at which this would occur is impossible to know for certain in advance, but I dont think it is implausible to put warming of more than 4C to 5C in this category. There is a plausible case that the relatively stable climate of the Holocene was one major reason for the emergence of agriculture and civilization as we know it. A sufficient level of climatic disruption could put that in jeopardy. Runaway climate change This requires careful definition, since there are always feedback effects in the climate system. One of the most important is water vapour; when greenhouse gas concentrations rise and increase the quantity of solar radiation retained by the Earth system, that warming increases the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere. Since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas, that feedback causes further warming. Because of feedbacks of this kind, every time the climate system gets pushed a little bit, it runs away a bit further before coming to a new equilibrium. When I refer to runaway change, I am not referring to this ordinary situation. Rather, I am talking about when change begins to beget ever-more change, like a screeching microphone too close to a speaker. Runaway climate change would be a cascading amplification of warming in which positive feedbacks build upon one another and the climate system is ultimately put into a radically different state. This can be understood by analogy. When human activities alter the climate, it is a bit like rocking a vending machine back and forth. You can tilt it a certain distance forward or back and, when released, it rocks back to its original vertical state. Pushing it into a runaway circumstance is like tilting it so far that it begins falling over under its own weight. In the climate system, this could be caused by things like melting ice vanishing, meaning less solar radiation gets reflected into space. It could also arise partly from powerful greenhouse gases trapped under the ground and sea in the Arctic escaping because the air and water around them warm up. In a worst-case scenario, this could make the entire planet permanently hostile to life. We know that planets can move from a state potentially hospitable to life to one that is utterly hostile. At one point, there was liquid water on the surface of Venus. A brightening sun caused runaway climate change on that planet, and now the mean surface temperature is over 400C. It is not known with certainty whether runaway climate change is possible on Earth, or could be induced by human activity. I think I have generally used these terms with these meanings in past posts on this site and a sibilant intake of breath. I shall certainly endeavour to use them consistently in the future. Avoiding dangerous climate change is an ethical necessity and highly desirable practically, though the political will to achieve it is entirely lacking globally. Avoiding catastrophic or runaway climate change is absolutely necessary if any of the other ambitions of humanity are to be achieved. If we fail to achieve that, future generations will be correct in cursing us for our selfishness and lack of vision.

* For instance, in terms of parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere, in terms of changes in radiative forcing measured in watts per square metre, or in terms of mean surface temperature change. The work of climatologists has found evidence to suggest that only a limited number of factors are primarily responsible for most of the past episodes of climate change on the Earth. These factors include:

Variations in the Earth's orbital characteristics. Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations. Volcanic eruptions Variations in solar output.

. Causes SHARE | EMAIL | PRINT | RSS The greenhouse effect

A layer of greenhouse gases primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks." Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases .

Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.

Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 300 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead. On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not. Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer. A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise. Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet. The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years. They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. Solar irradiance It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system. Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps. But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Climate models that include solar irradiance changes cant reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

mauritius: addressing climate change damage to island livelihoods

Mauritius is among Africas top nations in terms of GDP and living standards. However, on Rodrigues, a semi-autonomous island district 560 kilometres north-east of Mauritius Island, livelihoods and productivity have been deeply affected by climate change. As farmers and fishers ability to export their produce falls, poverty is on the rise.

The goal of this project was to build awareness and capacity about the impacts of climate change on the vulnerable groups of Rodrigues Island. what happened: Friends of the Earth Mauritius / MAUDESCO carried out an islandwide survey of fisher and farming communities and their families. This included consultative meetings with these target groups, as well as additional meetings to train those who carried out the survey. Four seminars were also organized with the target groups, plus an additional national seminar and workshop to share the survey findings. The latter one-day seminar/workshop was bolstered by the attendance of Aldrin Calixte of Friends of the Earth Haiti. The FoE Mauritius surveys confirmed that the island is heavily impacted by climate change, farming and fishing in particular. Local people report less rainfall, with winters becoming colder and summers becoming hotter. Soil fertility is decreasing, and livestock growth and food crop production have been negatively affected. There is a noticeable loss of biodiversity, while formerly eradicated insects and parasites have returned, all combining to increase farmers poverty. As for fishing, respondents report rougher seas which hamper fishing, cooler waters, and more energy and money expended on smaller catches. They complained that the sea is more polluted, and that the islands major lagoon is virtually without fish, while some fish species have disappeared from the seas. They also note that the sea level is rising. The four capacity-building, awareness-raising seminars were very well attended by almost 300 participants, while the national seminar was attended by over 150 people representing the three impacted groups, the majority being women. what is changing: The project was to cover mitigation activities to some extent. Though no funds were clearly earmarked for this, the seminars / workshops stressed the importance of preserving the environment and preventing climate change through a sustainable lifestyle. Activities put forward included tree planting, especially multipurpose tree varieties, and energy and water conservation. Aldrins presentation provided examples of how these steps are taken in Haiti. The message we left was clear: by

adopting very simple actions one can contribute directly to preserve the environment and prevent climate change it is all a question of individual attitudes, said Rajen Awotar of FoE Mauritius. what we learned: Unlike on Mauritius, women play a frontline role in farming and fishing in Rodrigues. Due to climate change impacts, they learned that most of their activities are now concentrated on feeding their families, with very little margin for excess production to sell to the markets. The national seminar provided participants with the golden opportunity to learn about Haiti through Aldrin Calixte, a country with many similarities to the Republic of Mauritius. Attendees expressed the need for an exchange program to share experiences between the two countries. The national seminar made it clear that small-island states such as Rogdrigues, Mauritius and Haiti are particularly vulnerable to climate change. It also become clear that these effects have probably been felt for a fairly long period of time, but have only just recently been attributed to climate change. Furthermore, they addressed the fact that these countries have no instruments, such as crop insurance, to cushion these impacts. The only policy for assistance to impacted communities was a very weak financial scheme in Mauritius and Rodrigues for fishers who face bad weather. Therefore they also discussed the Adaptation Fund set up in Bali, stressing the importance of representing the impacted groups in the Mauritius National Adaptation Fund likely to be set up under its provisions. what next: It is evident that there is an urgent need to build the capacity, information, and awareness-raising levels of the impacted groups regarding project identification and formulation, to enable them access the Adaptation Fund. FoE Mauritius also stressed the fact that these groups should be part of the process and not outsiders, despite the distance from Mauritius. with thanks to our funders: the sigrid rausing trust