3Qs: The current state of climate change science

Aug 23, 2013 by Angela Herring
Civil and environmental engineering associate professor Auroop Ganguly uses climate modeling to forecast long-term water-related threats. Credit: TK

Earlier this week, the public learned the details of the upcoming fifth assessment report (or, "AR5") of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body whose mandate is not to do new science, but to assess the state of the existing science. IPCC assessments cover a lot of ground, from the basics of physical science to adaptation and mitigation. Among other factors, the AR5 is expected to report that climate change is almost certainly caused by human activities, that the sea level is expected to rise more than previously estimated, and that the best-case-scenario global temperature increase could be lower than previously estimated. We asked Auroop Ganguly, a civil and environmental engineering associate professor whose expertise lies in climate change and extreme weather, to discuss the report and what its conclusions mean for developing long-term solutions.

How do scientists determine whether temperature rise is a result of human activities and why is their certainty that it has increased over the last five years?

The scientific consensus typically relies on multiple lines of evidence. However, the most common approach that ultimately leads to assigning numbers is based on what is called "fingerprinting." One way to think of these is as a bunch of model-driven, physics-guided, and statistically-based approaches that attempt to delineate just how much of the warming is a result of human-induced emissions versus how much may be attributed to natural variability. Climate models are run in historical time periods with and without anthropogenic , and then compared with each other and with observations. Statistical methods attribute and deviations to natural variability, and then delineate that portion that can only be explained when human emissions are taken into account, but not otherwise.

The underlying observations and models, as well as the and our understanding of the physics, have been steadily improving. Hence, we see the increase in certainty over the years. However, large uncertainties remain. One persistent issue has been the impact of clouds. Just last year, two top climate scientists published two papers with different results for climate sensitivity with regard to how much additional warming to expect with the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientists and science communicators are faced with the daunting task of conveying the basic message and their relevance clearly and convincingly, without either de-emphasizing or over-emphasizing the uncertainties. The IPCC is tasked with a difficult job.

The report notes that a key challenge for climate scientists is making reliable predictions about changes at the local scale. Why is this more difficult than making global predictions?

Certainly it is easier for your eyes to glaze over a few degrees of warming. Here in Boston, we can have more temperature fluctuations in a single day, and sometimes in a few hours, than global average temperature increases over the last decade or even century. Once we realize that even a few degrees of increase in global average temperatures may lead to hotter heat waves, perhaps not offer much respite in terms of the more intense cold snaps, and intensify heavy precipitation across multiple regions of the world, we begin to comprehend the nature of the problem. This is why some would prefer the phrase "global weirding" to global warming. When we start to think of what these could mean in the context of catastrophic consequences, particularly in urban areas, we can understand the implications. Regional and even local projections are needed to translate climate change knowledge to actionable information. This includes things such as how to design buildings, protect transportation networks and infrastructures, enhance dams and reservoirs, safeguard nuclear power plants from floods, develop sensor-based early warning systems, and make coastal cities more resilient to hurricanes and storm surge.

At the risk of over-simplification, the lack of predictability arises from three primary factors. First, our physical understanding of the fine-scale processes of interest and our ability to encode them within computer models are limited. These include processes such as convection that may cause heavy precipitation and consequent flash floods, as well as the formation and evolution of tropical cyclones or hurricanes. Second, averages are often easier to predict statistically, just as one coin toss becomes a game of luck while 1,000 tosses are more likely to lead to about 500 heads. Advances in physics and computer models need to go hand in hand with more sophisticated statistical analysis and data-driven methods, and both require more and higher quality data. Third, what complicates matters further is that planning horizons for adaptation decisions are typically not much beyond a couple of decades. At these time scales, the intrinsic variability of the nonlinear climate system may be hard to separate from a change signal. This intrinsic variability has many manifestations, and often relate to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Under such situations, the uncertainties need to be characterized in a comprehensive manner before the climate projections can be used for planning or adaptation purposes.

What implications does this challenge have on developing long-term solutions?

The implications are serious. The effects of Superstorm Sandy in the New York / New Jersey area are a case in point. However, given the uncertainties at local to regional scales, and the fact that adaptation measures need to be taken urgently, there is a danger of making decisions that are sub-optimal. This is especially true when resources are limited, especially since resilience measures for say, high winds, or large precipitation rates, or major storm surges, may need to be different. As one other example, consider vulnerable regions of the world, where precipitation patterns directly relate to food and water security as well as flood hazards, leading in turn to severe loss of lives and property. A prediction of consistent and continuous intensification of rainfall extremes may lead to more spending on uniform flood hazards preparedness. However, a prediction of increasing variability in these extremes may necessitate better understanding of adaptive management, both for flood hazards preparedness, but also for water harvesting and distribution policy and infrastructures. These are situations where understanding the uncertainties remains critical; in fact, quick and dirty solutions, however tempting or well meaning, can have drastic negative consequences rather than helping save lives or reducing damage to property.

Thus, long-term developments need to be in areas such as comprehensive uncertainty characterization; in bringing to bear the collective power of models, data, physics, and statistics to reduce uncertainty where possible; and in achieving a balance between the need to develop urgent and proactive solutions while exercising caution so that the proposed remedies do not end up hurting rather than helping. Extracting insights despite the uncertainties and managing in an adaptive fashion that balances the various constraints need to be urgent national and societal priorities going forward.

Explore further: Climate change could affect future of Lake Michigan basin

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The case for climate models

Jul 24, 2013

In the absence of time-travelling climatologists, models are unrivalled tools for understanding future climate, even when news ones predict wider uncertainties, write Sophie Lewis and Sarah Perkins.

Are tropical forests resilient to global warming?

Mar 10, 2013

Tropical forests are less likely to lose biomass – plants and plant material - in response to greenhouse gas emissions over the twenty-first century than may previously have been thought, suggests a study published online ...

3Qs: What is 'global weirding'?

Mar 22, 2012

Auroop Ganguly — an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering who heads Northeastern’s Sustainability and Data Sciences Lab — explains how global climate change and extreme ...

Central European summer temperature variability to increase

Dec 18, 2012

More extreme heat waves have been observed in central Europe in recent years as summer temperature variability has increased on both daily and interannual timescales. Models project that as the climate warms throughout the ...

Recommended for you

Avoiding ecosystem collapse

4 hours ago

From coral reefs to prairie grasslands, some of the world's most iconic habitats are susceptible to sudden collapse due to seemingly minor events. A classic example: the decimation of kelp forests when a ...

Global warming cynics unmoved by extreme weather

4 hours ago

What will it take to convince skeptics of global warming that the phenomenon is real? Surely, many scientists believe, enough droughts, floods and heat waves will begin to change minds.

New tool displays West Coast ocean acidification data

5 hours ago

Increasing carbon dioxide in the air penetrates into the ocean and makes it more acidic, while robbing seawater of minerals that give shellfish their crunch. The West Coast is one of the first marine ecosystems ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2013
Science has yet to say or agree that their own 28 year old threat to the planet is inevitable or eventual or unavoidable or WILL happen. What has to happen now for science to agree on something past "could be"?
How close to irreversible and unstoppable warming will the lab coat consultants take us before they agree it WILL happen not just "could" and"might" and "likely' and.....................?
The ultimate disaster needs certainty not "maybe" and science can end this costly debate instantly by saying their crisis is now really going to happen. Help my house could be on fire maybe?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2013
Science has yet to say or agree that their own 28 year old threat to the planet is inevitable or eventual or unavoidable or WILL happen. What has to happen now for science to agree on something past "could be"?
How close to irreversible and unstoppable warming will the lab coat consultants take us before they agree it WILL happen not just "could" and"might" and "likely' and..?
The ultimate disaster needs certainty not "maybe" and science can end this costly debate instantly by saying their crisis is now really going to happen. .....?


Yes, I think the regulars on here know your thing about certainty - you come up with it every time you post.
"The ultimate disaster needs certainty not "maybe" " Does it. Really?
It needs only a small margin of certainty since "ultimate", is, well, the ultimate - if we have it in our power to mitigate - it needing a lead time of decades.
The greater the loss the quicker we must react. Would you rather play Russian roulette with 5 bullets or 6?
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
So models are evidence now? I remain a climate model denier. http://opinion.fi...mockery/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.