Current research has shown that climate models are overestimating the effects of clouds on the cooling of the earth. If this research checks out, this will put a lot more pressure on politicians and regulators because warming will occur even faster. The article discusses how the clouds affect warming is based off of the mixture of water and ice in clouds. Data from a satellite shows that clouds have more water than ice and this causes a faster rate of warming. The reason this causes more warming is because as less and less ice is in clouds, there will be less capacity for the water to form. Water reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere causing warming to be slowed, so having less water in the clouds makes the earth warm faster. Recent studies that prompted this research have shown that climate models are incorrectly assessing the ratio of water to ice in clouds. The new research suggests that this incorrect cloud assessment could lead to an additional 1.3 degrees celsius of warming. Some climate change professionals say that the 1.3 degree change has to be taken with a grain of salt because no one knows the exact affect. It should be interesting to see what further research says and what noticeable changes happen in the next few decades.

Schwartz, John. “Climate Models May Overstate Clouds’ Cooling Power, Research Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/science/climate-models-may-overstate-clouds-cooling-power-research-says.html?_r=0>.

UN delegates met last week in New York to further discuss the Paris Climate Accord initiated in December. The world’s two largest financial institutions are pushing national leaders to price the carbon emitted in their respective countries, either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. The article I read this in didn’t say that the banks favored one or the other (1), and neither do their webpages on carbon pricing.(3, 4). I thought this was interesting, because the two strategies, while they both price carbon, operate fairly differently and can lead to different results. As a means to achieve a certain level of GHG emissions, I’ve never understood the appeal of a carbon tax. It requires regulators to figure out what the price of carbon should be, so that the desired emissions levels are reached. Instead, in a cap-and-trade system, regulators set a cap on what emissions should be, and leave the market to figure out the price through supply and demand of allowances.

Although I am undoubtedly simplifying this to the argument’s detriment, with a carbon tax, a political body must rely on both the expertise of climatologists to pick a GHG emissions reduction goal that will ward off the worst of climate change’s effects and the expertise of economists to pick how high the tax should be to reach that goal. With cap-and-trade, you get to bypass the economists in that regard entirely. Although, if similar revenues are to be generated under cap-and-trade as under a carbon tax, economists are still very necessary in picking auction floor prices, whereas a carbon auction is not part of a carbon tax. I dunno! I have to read more about both of them.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html?ref=politics
2. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/enviro.htm
3. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon

This week’s article was on how 2016 was showing record high global temperatures. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the months of January, February and March have already exceeded that highs from 2015. In addition, this March has also been the 11^th consecutive month to show record high temperatures since the 1800’s. This continuous increase in temperatures have alerted the NOAA, NASA and Japan’s Meteorological Association because they have all came up with similar results on the earth’s rising temperature. After this realization, the organizations have gone to the United Nations to raise awareness of the global climate change. They have also discovered that the terms signed in the last treaty has not have the significant effects that were expected. The organizations brought up the example of this year’s El Nino Phenomenon. It brought heavier rains and warmer temperatures. Also, scientist predict is will release larger amounts of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere which will cause irregular weather patterns.

In addition to El Nino, the Artic has also been showing record high temperature that have been about 6 degrees higher than normal. This can lead to record melting of Artic sea ice in the upcoming months. Dr. Trenberth, a scientist in the NOAA, says these new occurrences do not represent a “new normal” and it hard to predict how these changes will effect long term changes in the global climate. Overall, the rising global temperatures should be taken seriously and be closely monitored because no one is exactly sure how it will directly affect our species and all the ones that share this planet.

Schlossberg, Tatiana. “2016 Already Shows Record Global Temperatures.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Geo-engineering is the deliberate manipulation of physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system (AGU, 2012). This strategy is becoming necessary due to sluggish mitigation efforts that are not enough to slow climate change, let alone undo changes resulting from past emissions. As well as the predicted inability to manage climate change by adaptation alone because of the wide range of impacts such as sea level rise, species extinction, drought, flooding, increased hurricane activity, and more. According to an applied physicist at Carnegie Mellon University, “we’re at the point where it would be a mistake not to better understand what might be possible or whether it might work” (Engelhaupt, 2010). It is important to research how effective geo-engineering could be at reducing carbon dioxide concentration or exerting a cooling influence on Earth to reverse the temperature increase.

Examples of geo-engineering inventions include releasing sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic cooling associated with volcanic eruptions, releasing seawater into the clouds to increase albedo, and releasing iron rich fertilizer into the ocean to enhance plankton growth. Nevertheless, each of these inventions has associated side effects. None of these ideas have been tested in the real world due to uncertainty and lack of funding. Pumping reflective solid particles into the stratosphere could block 2% of the sun’s rays, reducing temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius, and in turn balancing the warming effect of doubling CO₂ above pre-industrial levels. The cost however, $10 billion per year, along with the possibilities for acid rain, reduction of rain during Asian and African summer monsoons, and slowing recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by 30 years, make this a great idea if the damage for some is worth a 2 degree cooling. The problems associated with manipulation of clouds include impacts to precipitation patterns. Cloud seeding leads to uneven precipitation rates that could leave the equator dry and Amazon flooded, but could also cool the Artic enough to restore disappearing sea ice. Injecting the ocean with fertilizer to enhance growth of plankton that in turn ingests CO₂ is the only invention out of all discussed that has been implemented. Geo-engineering has not received adequate attention and funding that could reduce the negative side effects and optimize the positive effects on the Earth system.

There is no question that concentration of CO₂ will continue causing temperature rise if mitigation, adaptation, and/or geo-engineering strategies are not executed. Mitigation strategies might include finding ways to limit warming, flooding, and drought. However, there is damage that cannot be reversed with mitigation or adaptation alone. Geo-engineering has the potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences. More funding is needed to support geo-engineers in finding ways to optimize cooling, while limiting additional negative impacts to the Earth system.

Engelhaupt, Erika. “Engineering a Cooler Earth.” JSTOR. Science News, 5 June 2010.        Web. http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/pdf/25677901.pdf?acceptT C=true

“Geoengineering Solutions to Climate Change Require Enhanced Research, Consideration of Societal Impacts, and Policy Development.” Science Policy. American Geophysical Union, 13 Dec. 2009. Web.   http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU_Geoengineering_Statement.pdf

As global temperatures continue to rise due to anthropogenic climate change, there is a need to stop or slow this warming trend. Mitigation and adaption attempts have fallen short when it comes to climate change and the warming needs to be stopped before earth reaches the 2°C tipping point of no return. Previous studies have shown geoengineering provides the means to stop or slow the warming. Literature on geoengineering has determined the best solution to climate change is mitigation, but geoengineering is a secondary plan that may be used if mitigation attempts do not succeed.

Through solar radiation management, geoengineering can lower global temperatures.  Reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space using cloud seeding and stratospheric aerosols will lower radiation reaching earth’s surface and lower temperatures. Geoengineering will be effective at lowering global temperatures, but it is not a solution to climate change. Geoengineering offers extra time until carbon emissions are cut so the earth will not enter a new stable state due to rising temperatures. The best way to combat climate change is through a dual mitigation and geoengineering strategy. All in all, geoengineering is a plan B for climate change, but it could have unintended consequences in the future and that’s why mitigation should be the world’s primary focus.

Resource:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/solar_geoengineering_is_not_a_quick_fix.html

Global Warming is occurring at a rapid rate and yet people believe it is a minor issue in the United States.  This can be contributed to a common phrase for people who do not want to address Global Warming “I like warm weather so how can Global Warming be bad”.  People overall enjoy a more mild winter that has been contributed to with Global Warming.  According to a study eighty percent of Americans live in places that have better climates than 40 years ago.  In this period summer temperatures have risen slightly with a decrease in humidity, while winter temperatures have risen drastically, causing people to enjoy warmer winters.   Since Americans associate daily weather, this will have a negative effect on convincing people global warming exists.  The other issue is the trend of warmer winters and slightly warmer summers will change later in the century when it is to late to address climate change.

To counteract this issue global warming should not be talked about in warming temperatures, but instead about the temporary/short lived positive weather effects.  We should also talk about the increase in severity in storms, since humans understand the impact on the economy of storms.

-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/global-warming-feels-quite-pleasant.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGlobal%20Warming&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

This article talks about two recently striking earthquakes.  Earthquakes of magnitudes exceeding 7.0 struck Japan and Ecuador just hours apart on Saturday.  The two however are not related.  The two quakes occurred about 9,000 miles apart. That is too much of a distance for their to be a connection.  Large earthquakes can, and usually do, lead to more quakes; however, this is only if they are in the same region, or along/near the same fault.  These are called aftershocks. Sometimes a large quake can be linked to a smaller quake that occurred earlier, called a fore shock.  In the case, seismologists believe that several magnitude-6 quakes in the same region on the previous day were fore shocks to the Saturday event.  It turns out that the two earthquakes actually aren’t similar.  The magnitude 7.8 in Ecuador was what would be considered a classic mega thrust event.  A mega thrust quake occurs in the boundary zone where one of the planet’s tectonic plates is sliding under another which is the process of subduction.  Even though two 7.0 plus earthquakes occurred within the same day, this doesn’t mean that earthquake activity is increasing.  The geological survey, which monitors earthquakes around the world, says the average number of quakes per year is remarkably consistent.  For earthquakes between magnitude 7.0 and 7.9, there have been some years with more than 20 and others with fewer than 10, but the average, according to the survey, is about 15. That means that there is more than one per month, on average, and by chance, sometimes two quakes occur on the same day.  There are earthquakes occurring every day that people do not notice due to the fact that they are occurring in the ocean.  I think this is an article that shouldn’t alarm us but it is definitely good that we keep record of when earthquakes occur and continue to study them.

References:

Fountain, Henry. “Are Earthquakes in Japan and Ecuador Related? The Science Says No.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.

2016 is already proving to be the hottest year to date, with only January, February and March behind us. Each of these three months were hotter than they were in 2015. The El Nino that occurred this year is also responsible for the increase in temperatures as well as the abnormal weather patterns that were witnessed. The El Nino was reinforced by climate change, but is now, fortunately, coming to an end. Scientists compared this El Nino to the most recent, record-breaking El Nino that occurred from 1997 to 1998. This was used to differentiate the temperature increase from climate change or from the El Nino. Their findings revealed that this El Nino was an additional 0.8 degrees higher than the one recorded in the late 90’s.

The combination of both the El Nino and global warming does not show a bright outlook for escaping climate change and rapid increases in heat. Scientists fear that this new heat will melt the Arctic sea ice in the upcoming summer. The 1.5 degree threshold that was set at Paris this past December is already being threatened. One research and scientist stated that, “I don’t see at all how we’re going to not go through the 1.5 degree-number in the next decade or so.” 2016 is already looking like an ominous year for climate change, and it is only a third of the way finished.

References:

Schlossberg, Tatiana. “2016 Already Shows Record Global Temperatures.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 19 Apr. 2016.