Sustainable Thinking

My Research

2009-11-11T13:21:00.000-08:00

I am in the process of submitting a paper from part of my Master's work to a journal. I thought the introduction might give you an idea of what I study, if you're interested! I think the Amazon is a fascinating area to study! For fun, I'll also post some pictures from my trip to Manaus last November.

"The role of deep soil moisture in modulating climate in the Amazon rainforest"
Approximately half of the Amazon’s evergreen forests are subjected to dry seasons of at least three months [Nepstad et al., 1994], and yet the forest seems to thrive during the dry, sunny months. Understanding the mechanisms that enable the forest to live through extended dry periods is of particular importance considering that the effects of both global warming and land use change are predicted to cause a drier climate in this region [Oliveira et al., 2005].

The roots in the Amazon are well suited for dry season survival. Tap roots have been observed up to 11 m deep [Nepstad et al., 1994; Jipp et al., 1998]. Hydraulic redistribution (HR) allows the plants to access water from shallower soil layers, where most of a tree’s fine roots are located, and has been observed in three trees in the Tapajos National Forest in Brazil [Oliveira et al., 2005]. These adaptations increase a plant’s drought tolerance, enable the plants to maintain transpiration and carbon sequestration during seasonal droughts [Saleska et al. 2003; Oliveira et al., 2005], and have been shown to improve the seasonal cycles of evapotranspiration and carbon fluxes in land models [Lee et al., 2005; Baker et al., 2008, respectively]. However, few studies have looked at the effects of deep soils on climate in a coupled sense [e.g. Kleidon and Heimann, 1999; Lawrence and Chase, 2009]. This paper is a step in that direction.

By adding more realistic root and soil functions in the Simple Biosphere model, version three (SiB3), Baker et al. [2008] obtained more realistic results with regards to surface fluxes at certain sites in the Amazon. The goal of this paper is to examine the effects of these changes on the simulated hydrologic cycle when SiB3 is coupled to a single column version of a GCM. Ultimately, SiB3 will be coupled to a global GCM, and to a cloud resolving model which is then embedded as rows in GCM grid cells as a way of replacing typical cloud parameterizations. Therefore, this study lays the foundation for understanding the effects of certain soil biophysical properties on climate in the Amazon. The SCM is a useful tool for cutting the computational cost of coupled model development [Betts and Miller, 1986; Randall and Cripe, 1999] and facilitates testing parameters or diagnosing problems.

SiB, like other ecosystem models, previously had problems simulating fluxes of heat and moisture in the Amazon [Saleska et al., 2003; Randall et al., 1996; Liu, 2004]. In coupled runs of SiB2 and CSU’s GCM (BUGS5), Liu [2004] found that soil moisture stress led to decreased dry season transpiration and an overly dry and deep boundary layer, and ultimately to a complete shut-down of the hydrologic cycle in the Amazon. This result is analogous to the Amazon dieback found by Cox et al. [2004], where the forest transitioned to savannah due to decreased rainfall over western Amazonia in the 21st century [Cox et al., 2004]. Encouraged by the results of Baker et al. [2008], we investigate the climatic effects of including deep roots and more realistic ecosystem stress responses in SiB3. To study these effects, we coupled SiB3 to a single column version of BUGS5.

Unlocking the carbon cycle: the Eighth International Carbon Dioxide Conference

2009-10-30T18:30:00.000-07:00

Here are some excerpts from an article I've written for the next issue of the AGU atmospheric science newsletter.

The most recent carbon cycle research was presented at the eighth edition of the International Carbon Dioxide Conference in Jena, Germany in September. Most of the talks were held in a plenary session, allowing the attendees to pick up as much information as possible. The communal atmosphere fostered discussion, feedback, and plans for future collaborations. What was learned from more than 500 posters and 100 talks could easily fill a comprehensive textbook on the carbon cycle. However, here we summarize some of the content of the meeting, which covered all aspects of the carbon cycle, including land and ocean sinks, atmospheric concentrations and transport, and fossil fuel emissions.

Oceans
Roughly half of the CO2 emitted by human activity each year remains in the atmosphere. The other half is split between the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans. Several talks focused on the oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Andrew Watson, from the University of East Anglia, spoke about evidence for decadal changes in the oceanic carbon cycle, such as decreases in the anthropogenic CO2 at depth due to changes in deep water formation in the Labrador Sea from 1997 to 2003. These changes appear to be partially forced by anthropogenic climate change and partially by natural oscillations in oceanic circulation and the climate system. Such observations challenge the conventional assumption that the oceanic carbon cycle is in a steady state.

Land
Carbon scientists have been working to quantify the land carbon sink for more than a decade. Two talks focused on the roles of land use change and natural disturbances in the land sink. Richard Houghton, of the Woods Hole Research Center, estimated an annual flux of CO2 from land use change of 1.5 +/-0.7 petagrams of carbon (PgC). Conversion of forest to crops and pasture are the largest components of this flux. Depending on the dataset, tropical emissions from land use change in the 1990s was anywhere between 0.9 and 2.4 Pg C per year. Disturbances such as the pine beetle in the Canadian Rockies, fire and extreme drought result in disequilibrium in the strength of the land sink according to Yiqi Luo, from the University of Oklahoma. Quantifying these disturbances and understanding how climate change will affect them are essential tasks for quantifying the future land sink. Enhanced observational networks and experimental studies will be necessary for these to be achieved.

Anthropogenic CO2
Today we are at a point where science has proven that recent greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere are due to humans. According to Pieter Tans, from at NOAA’s Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, we cannot afford to wait to take action. He cited a one-in-six chance that continental temperatures will rise by 20°F due to doubling CO2 [Roe and Baker, 2007]. “I think this is a chance we should not take,” he said. He claimed that the developing world carries the burden to reduce emissions, and “we need to demonstrate to developing countries that development is possible with very low emissions.” But what role will scientists play? Tans said that observations and atmospheric transport models can give assurance that emissions reductions are working. In doing this work, scientists must fully disclose their data and methods. He also recommended scientific assessment of proposed geoengineering solutions.

David Archer, from the University of Chicago, presented the long-term implications of not reducing fossil fuel emissions. Once emissions are cut, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease over a period of several hundred years due to dissolution into the ocean. However, eventually the ocean’s ability to take up CO2 will be depleted, and CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere via reactions with calcium carbonate and silicate rocks. Once atmospheric CO2 and calcium carbonate reach equilibrium, approximately 10% of the carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere, Archer said. According to a study by Berner and Kothavala [2001], it could take 400,000 years before the last of the human-released CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. In other words, our actions today will impact climate on a geologic time scale. For example, Archer stated that emitting 5,000 gigatons of carbon would increase global mean temperature by 3°C for tens of thousands of years. Archer drove in his point of the long-term implications of fossil fuel emissions by saying, “It’s like somebody’s walking off a cliff. It will take them 10 seconds to hit the ground and you’re telling them the next 10 milliseconds won’t be all that painful.”

And some pictures of poster sessions and the dinner:

What determines the energy budget at the earth’s surface? (Day 1 of Global Climate Change course)

2009-05-01T07:11:00.000-07:00

The energy budget at the Earth’s surface is an important thing to quantify because any imbalance will result in compensating changes in temperature. Primarily, the balance is between incoming solar radiation, outgoing terrestrial radiation, and radiation “trapped” in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases (GHG’s: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are the main ones).

On long timescales (hundreds of thousands to millions of years), climate is influenced by:
- distance from the sun and intensity of the sun,
- atmospheric composition (especially how many GHG’s there are),
- tectonics (locations of continents and oceans affect atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns),
- Earth’s orbital path around the sun,
- volcanism (volcanoes emit GHG’s, although on the timescale of 1-2 years they have a cooling effect because the particles they emit also reflect solar radiation).

On short timescales, regional climate is determined by:
- the variation of solar radiation with latitude
- distribution of land and water (water retains heat through the winter because of its high heat capacity, while land has large temperature variations from winter to summer)
- ocean currents
- prevailing winds
- persistant high and low pressure areas (high pressure areas have sinking air that is warm and dry, low pressure areas have rising air and storminess)
- mountain barriers (rainy on the upwind side, dry on the downwind side)
- altitude

A lot of what we talked about was this general overview type information. It is what you would learn in a climate 101 course over the first few weeks, but we did almost all of it in one day – joy! More of this information can be found at: http://www.cmmap.org/learn/climate/causes1.html.

Activities today: A HW on what determines climate for different regions (similar to this map: http://www.cmmap.org/learn/climate/causes7.html. And a lab using a simplified model, which calculates the average surface temperature based on some of the 'long-term' climate forcings. It can be downloaded here: http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/geebitt (go for Mini-GEEBITT version B3).

Reading: We had them read Ch 2 from Ruddiman's textbook: Earth's Climate, Past and Future. I think this is a good textbook, but we chose to use papers for most of the class reading. Luckily, this chapter is available on the publisher's webpage (for now at least!). Also, there is a short paper by Jim Hansen from Science 2005 called: Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. It is a little meaty for the first day of a class, but I think it's a good overview of how the Earth's energy isn't balanced due to increasing GHG's in the atmosphere. So it helps set the stage for things we'll talk about later in the course.

Science and Climate Change Policy

2009-04-27T20:22:00.000-07:00

here is a 2 piece article I wrote for the Atmospheric Sciences Newsletter for the American Geophysical Union. The first part covers the National Academy of Science and a bill being debated in Congress on climate legislation. The second is a more subjective overview of how useful/realistic the bill is.

What is the role of science in climate change policy?
Climate change policy is making headlines and generating heated debate recently, particularly regarding a cap and trade program in the U.S. On the forefront is the balance between mitigating and adapting to climate change, and protecting a faltering U.S. economy. The decisions that will ultimately be made require input from experts in many fields, and the National Academy of Science (NAS) has been asked for advice on climate change policy. While it is essential for policy-makers to be informed of the science behind the decisions they face, it is a precarious situation for scientists to be asked which course of action to follow.

In 2008, Congress asked the NAS (along with NOAA) to investigate and study climate change and to “make recommendations regarding what steps must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to global climate change, including science and technology challenges thereof.” Giving advice is why President Lincoln originally set up the Academy in 1863. The initial act creating the NAS charged it with investigating, examining, experimenting, and reporting on any scientific subject when called to do so by the government.

In response to Congress’ request, the NAS initiated a suite of studies called America’s Climate Choices (http://americasclimatechoices.org/index.shtml), which includes panels on limiting, adapting to, and researching climate change, and informing effective decisions and actions regarding climate change. The scientists involved plan to release a series of consensus reports later this year or early in 2010. The NAS also held a Summit on March 30 and 31 in Washington in order to discuss the U.S. response to climate change. Several hundred scientists, members of Congress, business leaders, and representatives of NGOs were in attendance.

Meanwhile, on March 31, Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) proposed a bill that addresses clean energy, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a clean energy economy. The bill is called the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009. The bill would require a transition to cap and trade and set target aggregate U.S. GHG emissions at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, beginning with modest changes over the next few years (3% (20%) below 2005 levels in 2012 (2020)).

The difficulty for NAS is two-fold. There is a fine line between reporting on the science behind policy and giving prescriptive advice on which policy to pursue. The first problem is defining that line.

The second problem is the timeline. The House Energy and Commerce Committee began debate on the ACES Act on April 22 (Earth Day), but the reports from America’s Climate Choices aren’t scheduled to be released until the end of the year. On the other hand, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on April 21 that climate legislation will be passed this year, and then said on April 22 that it will be ready a year from now (Eilperin, 2009). Either way, a summary report from the NAS could prove beneficial for the House debates, perhaps overviewing the science and progress discussed at the Summit in March.

AGU’s position statement on Human Impacts on Climate states that, in regard to climate change, scientists should strive “to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.” In regard to Congress’ request from the NAS on advice on bills such as the proposed ACES Act, the Academy can take a similar approach – research the underlying climate change and technologies and clearly communicate their findings, all the while paying close attention to the line between objectivity and subjectivity. While this can be difficult, it is of extreme importance.

Sidebar: Putting the proposed ACES Act of 2009 into perspective
Are the emissions suggested aggressive enough to curb “dangerous” levels of climate change?
Juan Añel (now the Editor-in-Chief of this newsletter) wrote a relevant article to this question called “New energy and climate change strategy presented by the EU Commission” in Volume 1, Number 2 of the AS Newsletter. In it, he summarized the report from a EU Commission, which states “that global warming has to be limited to no more than 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature to prevent dangerous levels of climate change.”

The ACES Act would set U.S. targeted emissions at 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. According to the EU Commission, emissions from developed nations need to be reduced by an average of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. However, as of 2006, the U.S. increased emissions by 14% since 1990. A 20% reduction from 2005 levels would be only roughly 8% below 1990 levels.

On the other hand, according to the EU Commission’s report, global emissions need to be 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. The proposed reduction of 83% of 2005 levels would be much greater than 50% from 1990 levels. This is an ambitious goal, but it would allow for developing nations to cut their emissions relatively less between now and 2050. However, it remains to be seen if modest decreases over the next decade will be enough to prevent 2°C warming over the next several decades. Although the proposed bill should be applauded (from an emissions-cutting standpoint) for its 2050 goal, the 2020 goal may be a case of too little too late.

Is it realistic to expect an 83% cut in emissions by 2050?
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were the equivalent of approximately 6.1 GtCO2 in 2006. Meeting an 83% reduction would require the average American’s emissions to drop from 20 tons of CO2/year to 3.4 tons/year, assuming no population change. The good news is that the reduction could start small under the Waxman-Markey bill, which would also provide benefits such as “green” job generation and decreased American dependence on foreign oil. The EPA has estimated that the national economy would continue to grow under the bill between 2015 and 2030 (from $15 trillion to $22 trillion), although the average U.S. household would see an increased expense of $98 to $140 a year.

Rob Socolow and Stephen Pacala, co-directors of Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, proposed 15 strategies that are currently commercially available which could each prevent the emission of 25 GtC over the next 50 years [Pacala and Socolow, 2004]. According to their paper, stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is possible if global emissions stay below 8 GtC/year for the next 50 years. If work begins now, they argue, by 2055 we will have the technology to then begin decreasing global emissions. Naturally, emissions from developing countries will increase as population grows, which leaves it up to developed nations like the U.S. to strongly cut emissions, particularly over the next 50 years. Seeing how these technologies are available today, and that the U.S. is a wealthy nation despite recent economic woes, an 83% decrease by 2050 indeed seems feasible both financially and technologically.

Sources:
Añel, J. (2007), New energy and climate change strategy presented by the EU Commission, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section Newsletter, 1(2), 3.
Eilperin, J. (Apr. 23, 2009), House panel begins debate on climate bill, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042202006.html
EPA: 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004), Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies, Science, 305, 968-972.
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990-2006.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600004891#beg

Global Climate Change undergraduate course

2009-04-12T21:45:00.000-07:00

Hello??!! Anyone out there? I haven't posted to this blog in months, but am planning on posting a recap of the undergraduate course I am wrapping up teaching. It is an entry-level class on global climate change, and is unique because it is about a quarter's worth of material covered in just 3-1/2 weeks! Insane!

This has been my first teaching experience and was/is overall positive. But it has been hard developing the course material as we go (I am co-teaching it with a geology professor). So I want to have a day-to-day record of what we did. Maybe I won't put it all on this blog (some of my presentations are huge), but I can put the outline of what was covered, selected readings, maybe assignments. If by some miracle a person who is planning a similar course comes across this, email me if you want more specifics and I'd love to share: abharper@atmos.colostate.edu.

At the bottom is the 16 topics we've covered. Over the next week or so, while this is still fresh in my mind, I'll be posting (ideally) once for each topic.
Here is some info about the course from the syllabus:
Goals and Scope of the Course
The goal of this course is to give you an understanding of how climate works and how climate is changing. You will learn about climate from a whole-earth point of view – taking into account interactions between the atmosphere, terrestrial biosphere, cryosphere, and oceans. We will, of course, study current climate change, but will also consider historical climate change and natural climate variability, and the impacts of these changes on societies and ecosystems. We will discuss climate models, climate predictions, and the concept of uncertainty as it pertains to the climate system.

Aside from these hard goals, we expect you to leave this class better prepared to interpret scientific data and results. This is a valuable tool whether you plan to become a scientist, teacher, politician … etc.

Schedule:
Each day’s lectures, labs, and discussions will be based upon a question that we wish to answer. By the end of the course, you should be able to answer or have a discussion about any of these questions. Also, the course will be broken up into 4 sections: the climate engine, causes of change, past change, and humans and climate.

What is the energy budget of the earth's surface?
How is heat transported around the world?
What is the importance of the carbon cycle?
What are feedbacks, and how do they work?
Why isn’t climate constant long term?
How has human society been impacted by climate change in the past?
Why is knowledge of past climate change useful?
What is a climate model and how is it useful?
Why isn’t climate constant short term?
How do humans act as agents of change?
How certain are we that current change is human-induced?
What is expected to change, and where?
What can we do about climate change and what are the responsibilities to the impacted?
What are some ways to engineer the climate and how are they physically possible?
What are some ways to engineer the climate and are they politically/ethically possible?
What are alternatives to carbon-based energy?

CFL's and Fort Collins Utilities

2008-12-02T20:43:00.000-08:00

I have two complaints and a little bit of useful information.
1. CFL's - you should have heard by now that these light bulbs are great - they consume less energy and last longer than regular bulbs. Initially, they were also a lot more money (the only brand I think was Felt Electric), and this is part of why Chris and I have only slowly been adding them to our house. Lately, there has been a flurry of brands with these bulbs, so we bought a bunch more at Lowes (brand Bright Effects). But in our pack of 4, 2 did not work. So we had to take them back. Later, Chris bought more at Home Depot (brand n:vision, I think the Home Depot brand). I installed them, but the one in our bedroom makes a really annoying humming noise and we will have to take these back, too. It is really annoying to me. What is the point of making these if you do a crappy job?? So, lesson learned - you get what you pay for and for the time being, we'll just have to put up with the more expensive brand.

2. Fort Collins utilities annoys me. You can supposedly sign up for wind energy for your home and it is really inexpensive - 1 penny per kilowatt-hour. Here's how convenient this system is:
- when we first found out about the wind energy program several years ago, we filled out the little mailer they sent us and signed up. It was only valid for 1 month.
- Chris talked to a Fort Collins utilities person over a year ago but wasn't given the right information to sign up.
- I called the utility company in October to sign up and was told they would be sending me the contract in the mail. It never came.
FINALLY, I've found some information online, thanks to a facebook friend. Of course, if you go to the Wind FAQ page, you get "File not found". But this website should work for downloading this mysterious contract I've been waiting for: http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/utilities/pdf/reswindagmt.pdf. Mail it to:
Fort Collins Utilities
700 Wood St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 221-6700
Then, cross your fingers, knock on wood, throw salt over your shoulder, say a rosary, etc. I'll be doing this and will post if it is successful.

Climate Change 101 - Part 4 (The greenhouse effect)

2008-10-16T12:17:00.000-07:00

Not all of the radiation emitted by the earth’s surface escapes to space. The longwave radiation interacts with gases and water in the atmosphere on its way out. The interactions with gases cause them to vibrate. Here’s how it works …

The important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor (H20), methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N20). These molecules absorb thermal infrared radiation – which also happens to be the radiation emitted by the earth’s surface. Some wavelengths emitted from the surface escape to space, but others are absorbed by the greenhouse gases. The re-emission of energy from these gases heats up the atmosphere and keeps the earth at a liveable temperature.

Climate Change 101 - Part 3 (Earth's radiative temperature)

2008-10-16T12:06:00.000-07:00

Global temperatures are determined by a balance between the incoming and outgoing radation at the top of the atmosphere. On average, 30% of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back to space. The remaining 70% provides heat for the earth’s surface. In turn, the surface heats up and emits longwave radiation in order to keep its temperature at equilibrium. You can calculate the radiative equilibrium temperature by solving for T in this equation:

The left-hand side of the equation is the amount of solar radiation (in watts) that reaches the earth’s surface. S is the solar constant (the amount of radiation emitted by the sun in watts per square meter). α is the albedo of the earth/atmosphere system. The albedo is the percentage of solar radiation reflected. R is the radius of the earth. At any given time, the sun’s radiation hits an approximately disc-shaped portion of the earth. This disc’s area is πR^2.

On the right-hand side of the equation is the amount of radiation emitted by the earth. σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant is used to calculate the rate of energy emission from a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs 100% of the radiation that hits it and it emits radiation at the maximum rate for its given temperature. Despite the name, a blackbody does not have to black. To the first order, we can approximate the earth as a blackbody. At any given time, the entire surface area (4πR^2) of the earth is emitting radiation.

If you want to solve for T yourself: S = 1,367 Wm^-2, α = 0.3, R = 6,378 km, and σ = 5.67*10-8 Wm^-2K^-4. (The unit for temperature is Kelvin. To convert to celcius, subtract 273.)

The radiative equilibrium temperature of the earth is -18°C (0°F). Think about that for a second. According to this equation, the average temperature of the earth is below freezing. However, the observed global mean surface temperature is 15°C (59°F). Obviously, the equation is not representing some essential properties of the earth’s climate.

Climate Change 101 - Part 1 revisited

2008-10-09T16:43:00.000-07:00

I reread what I wrote the other day and wanted to say a little more about the contributions of natural forcing to climate change. I don't mean to say that the current changes are ALL due to humans. There is definitely input from natural sources. But the consensus among climate scientists is that these sources are far outweighed by human activities. The 169 authors of the latest IPCC (all of them distinguished scientists in their respective fields) agreed that there is a 90% chance that “the human influence on climate dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the past half century.”

I welcome your comments. Let me know what you think! Thanks for reading ...

A large portion of the year-to-year variability in the earth’s climate is due to cycles in El Nino/La Nina. However, while this pattern can explain temperature and precipitation changes on short time scales, it does not account for the strong warming trend seen throughout most of the 20th century. For one thing, the pattern of 20th century warming includes stronger warming over lands than oceans and stronger warming in high latitudes. El Nino is a phenomenom that occurs in the tropical Pacific ocean. So the spatial pattern of El Nino does not match up with the 20th century warming.

There is an 11-year cycle in solar variability, and solar output has increased over the past couple of centuries. However, warming from an increase in solar radiation would be expected to be found in both the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) and higher up in the stratosphere. But 20th century warming has been greatest in the troposphere and the stratosphere has actually cooled. Increases in solar radiation have contributed somewhat to 20th century warming, but not as much as human activities.

Volcanoes can also contribute to climate change. On short time scales, volcanoes decrease global temperatures. Eras with heavy volcanic activity (such as the Cretaceous) were several degrees warmer than today, but there has not been a significant increase in volcanic eruptions during the 20th century.

Finally, we can use climate models to further assess the importance of human activities versus natural variability. The figure to the left (Figure 9.5 from the IPCC report) shows observed 20th century temperatures (black lines) and modeled temperatures (red and blue lines). In the top graph, the models (red) include both anthropogenic and natural climate forcing. The models agree well with the observed temperature trends, including decreased temperatures following major volcanic eruptions (such as El Chichon and Pinatubo) and a slight decrease in temperatures during the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the bottom graph, the models (blue) use only natural forcings (such as volcanoes, solar variability, and El Nino). These models do not include anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. In this case, the models do not show the increase in temperature that we have experienced over the past 50 years. This is further evidence that 20th century warming is mostly caused by human activities.

Source: IPCC FAQ: “Can the warming of the 20th century be explained by natural variability?”
You can download the complete answer to this and other good questions from http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html.

Climate Change 101 - Part 2 (Radiation Basics)

2008-10-09T08:33:00.001-07:00

The earth’s climate is determined by an energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Everything emits radiation – the sun, the surface of the earth, particles of gas and dust in the atmosphere, clouds, you, and me. The intensity of radiation depends on the temperature of the emitter. Also, the wavelength of the radiation is inversely proportional to the temperature.

Solar vs. Terrestrial Radiation
The sun is a blazing 5500 C and so it emits very intense radiation with short wavelengths. For this reason, solar radiation is sometimes also called shortwave radiation. Most (44%) of the sun’s radiation is in the visible wavelengths (0.4 (violet) to 0.7 (red) micrometers – a micrometer, μm, is one-millionth of a meter). Solar radiation falling outside of this range is not visible to humans, even though it is very intense. The sun’s radiation peaks at about 0.5 μm, which corresponds to the color blue-green. Nearly 37% of the sun’s radiation is between 0.7 and 1.5 μm (infrared wavelengths). Only about 7% of the sun’s radiation is in the ultraviolet range (wavelengths less than 0.4 μm), but this is still enough radiation to cause damage to human cells and cause skin cancer.

The surface of the Earth is on average “only” about 15°C (59°F) and so the radiation it emits has long wavelengths. For this reason, the Earth’s radiation is usually called longwave radiation, or sometimes terrestrial radiation. Terrestrial radiation is almost all in the infrared wavelengths, and it peaks between 5 and 25 μm.

Climate Change 101 - Part 1

2008-10-07T14:04:00.001-07:00

Is the climate changing? Is it due to human activity? What should we do about it? These are questions you might have on your mind from hearing about climate change from the media and politicians. While climate change seems like a popular topic right now, most of what you hear about it on a day to day basis is more about the adaptation and mitigation strategies than the science of why and how it is actually happening.

Although the earth’s climate has been constantly changing and evolving since the earth began, the current rate of change is unusual. Global temperatures have increased more rapidly since the Industrial Revolution than during the past thousand years, according to data from tree rings and boreholes. The graph below shows how temperatures have changed since 800 AD according to a handful of data sources. (For more information on this graph, see the IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group 1 report, Chapter 6 – http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm). The rapid rate of change, along with its connection to human activities, is why climate change is such an important issue.

Although climate change has been politicized, it’s really a scientific issue. There is a scientific relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures. Like climate change, this link is nothing new. For example, during the Cretaceous period (145 to 65 million years ago), evidence from fossils suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were much higher than they are today and that global temperatures were several degrees warmer. Almost the entire earth had a tropical climate. The difference between the current warming and the Cretaceous warming is the cause of high CO2. While past causes of high CO2 were natural, today’s primary cause is not. In the past, atmospheric carbon dioxide was high due to increased volcanism and decreased weathering. Today, carbon dioxide is on the rise due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Although how we should respond to climate change is highly debatable, the reasons for the rising temperatures are not. They come down to the physics of radiation and the chemistry of molecular structure. They are topics you probably covered in your middle school science classes. It’s time for a little refresher.

New address - Outward thought

2008-02-29T10:45:00.000-08:00

I have changed my address because annaharperco was lame. It is really annoying when the names you really want are taken by people who only have one post on their blog from 2002.

But I think that "outward thought" is an appropriate title because I am blogging about environmental issues (aka the great outdoors), but also because this is about me thinking outside of myself. I am not the most important person around, although often I act like it (aren't we all a little selfish?). Putting yourself second or third (or 6 billionth) involves a little bit of inconveniencing and a bit of going outside of your comfort zone, which is why I am not very good at it. But, that's what this blog is about, getting better about not wanting to be first!

Sorry I haven't written in a while, hopefully I will find time this weekend. :)

A Long Way to Go

2008-02-08T08:10:00.001-08:00

I don't want this blog to be all about what a wonderful psuedo-hippie I am becoming. I am lacking in many ways. I'm not trying to be self-demeaning here, just realistic so I will be motivated to do better! So let's see where I need improvement ...
1. I did not ride my bike to work at all this week, even though it has been pretty nice the last two days.
2. I drove, by myself, nearly 300 miles on Tues/Wed to go to Winter Park
3. The only thing I've done on the list in my previous blog is #2
4. Also, I want this blog to be about social responsibility, but I have done very little in this arena. My excuse is typically, "I'm a really busy grad student and maybe when I am done with my Master's I'll have time to commit to something!" But, I have realized that this Master's thing is moving really slowly, so instead of waiting to live my life I should be active now! I am kind of interested in volunteering at a women's clinic.

That's it - short and sweet! I hope I can stay motivated and get some stuff done!! Thanks for reading.
:)

Gas Guzzling SUV vs your home

2008-01-31T13:33:00.000-08:00

Let's do a word association game. When I say "global warming", what do you think of? Personally, one of the first things that comes to mind is gas-guzzling SUV's. Oh, here's another one - why is cutting carbon emissions in the US so hard? Another one with lots of answers, but one for me would be because Americans have a love affair with their cars, and we basically have to drive to get from place to place.

Because of these pre-conceived ideas of mine, I found it shocking that 48% of US energy consumption is from our buildings - heating, cooling, building and remodeling them. Transportation, including air travel, makes up 27% of the consumption (this was according to Metropolis Magazine. I tried to get the article online but it was available only to subscribers. I think it is "Turning Down the Global Thermostat", Oct. 2003). One-sixth of this electricity is used for cooling buildings.

Luckily, green building is becoming more and more prevalent. In general, green buildings use 30% less energy, 35% less carbon, 30-50% less water, and 50-90% less waste! And it's not just about being environmentally friendly. Fossil Ridge High School, a recently constructed green building in Fort Collins, saved more than $100,000 on electricity bills its first year of operation, and it didn't cost any more to make than a non-green building. Amazing!

CMMAP, the center I'm a part of, is going to be building a multi-million dollar facility and I think it would be terrible if it wasn't green.

Ok, I've got to go to another talk, but I want to give my list of things I want to do around the house to reduce my energy consumption. Some I could even do this weekend!
1. change our lightbulbs to CFL's - they use about 1/4-1/3 less energy than regular bulbs and last up to 10 years. The only thing is, I don't know if I should just throw away some perfectly working bulbs ...
2. change the air filter, it has been way too long!
3. put more insulation in the attic ... I think we are running a little thin
4. check out the water flow in some of our faucets - particularly our shower since it is used daily
5. call our trash collecters and tell them just to come every other week. it will save us money!
6. sign up for some wind power with our utilities, this is a wonderful option in Colorado!
7. maybe Chris and I should start setting aside some money each month so we can buy a hybrid car. If we do $200 a month for 4 years, we could put down $10,000. :)

Ok that is it! Thanks for reading!

Carbon footprint

2008-01-30T17:49:00.000-08:00

My mom has been on my blog and asked how to calculate a carbon footprint. So I decided to finally calculate mine. Wow ... I am depressed. For comparison, the national average is 53 Tons of Carbon per year per two-person household. The world-wide average is only 11 Tons.

Here are some sites where you can do the same and the results I got ...

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/ - 77 tons!!!!!! (for Chris and I)
53% of that is home energy, and 36% is driving and flying (between the two of us we flew 8 times last year).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html - 30 tons (for Chris and I)
Wow, much different!! This one takes into account how much you spend each month on heating your home. But ... it didn't ask about flights. So I am probably somewhere between the two above.

there are a lot more - just google carbon footprint.

I like this one, too
http://www.greenprogress.com/carbon_footprint.php - 9.16 tons (just me) and this included flights. If I pulled out my gas and electric bills, I could probably get something more accurate. I think another day I will do this again but be as precise as possible (exactly how many miles did I drive/fly last year?).

Overall I like the last one the most. They all give you tips at the end on how to reduce your footprint. Check it out - and join me in trying to reduce your footprint in 2008!!

Thanks for reading!

Focus the Nation

2008-01-27T19:17:00.001-08:00

I don't have many new thoughts tonight but I want to direct your (whoever you are) attention to Focus the Nation, a national event to increase awareness and knowledge about global warming. It is taking place at over 1600 institutions nationwide, so you can probably find one near you - www.focusthenation.org. It is this Wed and Thurs, Jan 30 and 31.

I think it's going to be very interesting and I'll be attending a handful of talks on the Colorado State campus. I am also going to work at the "Ask a Scientist" booth. I'm sure there will be lots of interesting dialog, which is the whole idea. Not really much more to say but you should check out the website! I'm sure I will have a lot to write about later this week!

Thanks for reading!

Climate Policy, Equity and Ethics

2008-01-22T12:51:00.000-08:00

Here it is, the long-awaited article I wrote about a talk I attended last week. This is still the first draft ...

Darwinian evolution, DNA stem cell research, and climate research all involve the issues of ethics and fairness, and force the scientists involved to decide if they should have any part in advocacy or policy in addition to the pure science that they do. Dr. Richard Somerville made this point during a talk on the UCLA campus on Wednesday, January 16, during a three-day conference of the Center for Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes. His talk was entitled “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Challenges of Climate Policy, Equity and Ethics.” Somerville is a theoretical meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and served as a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment report of the IPCC.

During the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, a primary objective was to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but did not expand upon how much climate change is considered “dangerous.” The nations of the UN have since created their own definitions of the word, and they also have different ideas of what is fair in mitigating climate change.

What exactly constitutes fairness? The December 2007 Bali negotiations were infused with disagreements on the differentiated rights and responsibilities of developed versus developing countries. Also, in terms of geoengineering, Somerville asked who has the moral (or legal) right to decide to intentionally modify the planet, and who pays for unintended consequences. A final issue he brought up was the obligations that the current generation has to our descendants.

Somerville said that it is the job of policymakers to decide what actions to take, and that our job as scientists is to predict how climate will respond to these actions. He listed three guidelines and principles for climate policy, which can be summarized as:
1. Scientiﬁc uncertainty should not be used as an excuse to prevent all action.
2. Win-win policies, or policies that have collateral beneﬁts, are preferable (for example, energy efficiency and conservation).
3. Scientists should not make policy, but wise policy should be informed by sound science (for example, halting stratospheric ozone depletion).
4. Do no harm (beware of unintended consequences).

Besides the ethical questions involved in deciding how involved one should be in policy and advocacy, scientists seem to have problems effectively communicating with the public. Somerville said the IPCC AR4 Working Group I decided to answer some frequently asked questions and write them for a high school teacher audience. However, they soon realized that this was easier said than done, and they ultimately had to hire a professional science writer. This experience convinced him that communicating with the public is an area with much room for improvement among climate scientists.

Progress is being made in deciding what constitutes “dangerous” anthropogenic climate change. Earlier last year, the European Union Commission effectively defined dangerous levels of climate change as anything greater than 2C above pre-industrial levels (See AS Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 2 article by Juan A. Anel for more information). The goal of 2C was also decided upon in the Bali Climate Declaration.
Somerville included a thought-provoking quote from the 1995 Nobel Prize winner F. Sherwood Rowland in his talk. Concerning the ozone hole, Rowland was quoted by New Yorker journalist Paul Brodeur as saying, “What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true!” This statement is relevant to our current quest to understand and communicate the possibilities of future climate change.

A trip to Target and the grocery store

2008-01-21T22:02:00.000-08:00

Trying to be a more responsible consumer made our trip to Target on Saturday a little longer and more expensive than usual (but only by about $5). Here is what I found:
- I found that most shampoos are biodegradable, but I only found one conditioner that is, made by Aussie. The shampoo and conditioner were both about $1 more than my usual Suave.
- Method makes hand soap that is biodegradable and they don't test on animals, and it smells really good and the bottles look kind of trendy. Also, they sell large refills that come in collapsible plastic bladders. Sweet.
- The one thing I felt I couldn't go green with were the swiffer dry mop thingies - you know the ones that use magical static power to pick up all the dust and hair you miss when you sweep. But, Method also makes these and theirs are compostable. Woohoo! I don't know much about this Method company but so far I like them!

Chris and I also decided that we are going to limit our meat consumption to twice a week. I have tried to go vegetarian before and it didn't go too well. Granted, it was in college when I didn't have as much time and money to devote to a healthy vegetarian lifestyle. But I went meatless for 6 months and got sick 6 times. Even recently, I had a really hard time maintaining the energy I needed for training for competitive cycling while eating very little red meat. I have been told that I am border-line anemic, and I have been turned away from donating blood before because of low iron. So I feel like sometimes I just need some meat! And, I like it! So, limiting meat to twice a week seems reasonable.

The two motivating factors for me are health and environmental impact. Like I said, I need the iron and protein from meat, but I also need to watch my cholesterol. On the environmental side, I've always known that raising livestock takes a heavy toll. But I've kind of shrugged it off until now. I read an article that quoted a University of Chicago study that found that the average American has a larger carbon footprint from what they eat than from driving. So what we eat does matter!

We had a delicious spinach and feta lasagna on Saturday night (also with some tofu) - the recipe was from The Grit cookbook. That is one of my favorite Athens restaurants and it is all vegetarian. Tonight we had tofu fajitas - yum! There are lots of meatless options, and I am excited about trying new recipes.

Blogging Wish List

2008-01-18T22:30:00.000-08:00

I have thought of so much I would like to write about in this blog over the past few days. I would like to start with an article I am writing for a newsletter I edit. I wrote it about a talk I went to on Wednesday on the UCLA campus called: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Challenges of Climate Policy, Equity & Ethics", given by Richard Somerville, a researcher from Scripps Oceanographic Institute and lead author of the most recent IPCC report. Unfortunately, now that I have gotten you all excited about my wonderful article, you will have to wait to read it because it is stored on my work computer and it is now the weekend.

But it was his talk and a few others at a conference I was at this week that got me inspired to make a conscious effort to live more responsibly. Well, honestly I think about this from time to time but I guess I received enough stimulation at this conference to finally take the plunge. The conference was for the Center of Multiscale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes (CMMAP) - it is a Science and Technology Center funded by the National Science Foundation. CMMAP's research aim is to improve the representation of clouds in climate and weather models, which would improve our simulations of future climates. I focus on land-atmosphere interactions in climate models. One of these days I will give a little summary of that, but not on a Friday night!

Now to the subject of this post ... there is a lot that I want to write about! Here are some things I have come across just in the past few days ...
- I want to decrease my food carbon emissions, for example by eating less meat and less food that is shipping and packaging intensive
- I read a shocking article in National Geographic regarding electronic waste that is shipped from the developed world to developing countries. The worst part about it is that people burn the parts (TV and computer monitors, hard drives, copper wires) so they can sell the metals but in doing so expose themselves to carcinogens and lead poisoning - there was a picture of a man melting lead in a pot that he also uses to cook dinner for his family. Anyway, more on that to come ...
- calculate my carbon footprint
- a friend of mine is looking into making her own household cleaners that are more environmentally friendly and safe (she is having a baby in June)
- well, maybe that is it but it felt like a lot when it was still in my head.

Thanks for reading! Goodnight :)

Welcome!

2008-01-16T00:15:00.000-08:00

I've decided to start this blog to document my attempt to be a more responsible and caring inhabitant of our planet. I feel the word stewardship is an appropriate description of this endeavor. Here is the definition of stewardship from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

"the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care"

In my case, this "something" is two things. First, it is the Earth. We as humans need to take better care of our home. One thing I would really like to do is to reduce my carbon footprint. I think that I can personally make a slight difference in climate change by making adjustments in my lifestyle, but I also feel that this is not enough. For this reason, I would also like to be more involved with policy advocacy and correspondence with the people who represent me in the government. I am very interested in climate change as both a citizen of Earth and as a scientist. I would like my stewardship in this area to extend beyond climate impacts. I want to be more conscious of my choices as a consumer - especially when it comes to food. I am not going to change my life overnight, but I feel that this is sort of an experiment as to what small changes I can make.

Second, I need to be a more caring neighbor to my fellow men and women. This I can do in many ways, if I just get off my butt. I can volunteer with schools to help teach kids about science, I can volunteer through my church, I can give blood more regularly, I can tithe my time and money, or I can be more aware of people who need a helping hand in my daily life in both big and small ways.

More will come in the future. I want this to be a learning process, so I will try to post links that are relevant to my quest. And I will give updates on my successes and failures. I think the next post should be a little background as to why I am suddenly feeling the urge to do this. This blog should have an interesting mix between science and human interest.