2016 CLIMATE CHANGE:
A N I M P O R TA N T I S S U E
ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY DEVELOPS LEADERS, PROMOTES BROTHERHOOD AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE, WHILE PROVIDING SERVICE AND ADVOCACY FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.1
THE MISSION OF THE ALPHA PHI ALPHA WORLD POLICY COUNCIL (WPC) IS TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF CONCERN TO OUR BROTHERHOOD, OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR NATION, AND THE WORLD. The council has been charged with applying sustained and profound intellectual energy to understanding an alternative means of bringing about the resolution of problems at the community, national, and international levels; expanding fraternal and public knowledge of such problems, and engaging public discussion about them. The council, in fulfilling its mission, is non-partisan, gives consideration to domestic and international issues, seeks the counsel of experts in relevant fields, provides perspectives on specific problems, and, where practicable, recommends possible solutions that may have a favorable impact on African Americans, the community, the nation, and the world.
CONTENTS (4)
PRESIDENT’S GREETINGS
(6)
WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
(8)
FROM THE CHAIR
(10)
THE COUNCIL’S INTRODUCTION
(14)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(16)
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
(18) CLIMATE CHANGE: WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE? Warren M. Washington (20) INTRODUCTION (24) THE HISTORICAL BEGINNING OF BUILDING MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM (28) EARLY SCIENTIFIC THOUGHTS ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT (34) CONTEMPORARY CLIMATE MODELS (40) RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE OVER THE LAST MILLENNIUM (44) NATURAL VS. ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE (54) IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CHANGE (56) THE 2015 PARIS AGREEMENT (58) THE MEDIA’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING SCIENCE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC (60) POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
(64) REFERENCES
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.3
FROM THE GENERAL PRESIDENT
It’s with great pleasure that we present the latest edition of the World Policy Council (WPC) Report.
ESTABLISHED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE 29TH GENERAL PRESIDENT OF ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY, BROTHER MILTON CARVER DAVIS, THE WPC CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SOUND INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE ON VARIOUS ISSUES OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE. The level of insight, thought, and research that has gone into preparing these papers is second-to-none. The recommendations within this document are brought forward for use in the on-going and future development of public policies by members of the United States Congress, White House staff, diplomats, and other stakeholders who share in the fraternity’s commitment to creating global dialogue on the great policy issues of our time. Alpha Phi Alpha is committed to expanding the fraternity’s global reach. Realizing that citizens of the United States of America must extend beyond boundaries in our thoughts, perspectives, and outreach, Alpha Phi Alpha aims to lead by example. We have gathered with our brothers overseas to understand and provide awareness and support to similar issues we face in the United States. The fraternity offers its highest thanks and commendations to members of the World Policy Council (WPC) and its chairman, Brother Horace Dawson, for all of their hard work and for their commitment to ensure that Alpha Phi Alpha continues to play a role on the world stage. The founders of Alpha would expect nothing less.
Mark S. Tillman General President
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.5
WORLD POLICY COUNCIL MEMBERS EDWARD W. BROOKE 1919-2015 [Beta ’37] Founding Chairman, World Policy Council; United States Senator, 1967-1979; Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1963-67; awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2004, Congressional Gold Medal, 2009
HORACE G. DAWSON JR., Chairman [Nu ’46] Awarded honorary degree (LLD) by Howard University, 2016; Founding Director, Ralph J. Bunche International Affairs Center, Howard University; Former U.S. Ambassador to Botswana; Lincoln University LLD and Hall of Fame; Distinguished Alumni Award, University of Iowa, 2009; Alpha Award of Merit, 2005
HENRY PONDER, Vice Chairman [Beta Kappa ’48] Former President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; Former President, Benedict College, Fisk University, Talladega College; Former Interim President, Langston University; Former General President, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity BOBBY W. AUSTIN [Tau Lambda ’68] President, Neighborhood Associates, Inc.; Director of the Education Portal of CRP, Inc.; Mahatma Gandhi Fellow, American Academy of Social and Political Science; Founding President of the Village Foundation; Executive Director of the National Task Force on African American Men and Boys, convened by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; Former Assistant Director, Kellogg National Fellowship Program M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II [Mu Lambda ’04] Executive Vice President and Provost, Southern University and A & M College System; Former President, Alcorn State University; Former Provost, Fisk University; Former Dean, College of Education, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; Former Vice President, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; Former Executive Director, Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute, United Negro College Fund
RONALD DELLUMS [Delta Omicron ’57] Former Mayor, Oakland, CA; President and Chief Executive Officer, HealthCare International; Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-California)
KENTON W. KEITH [Upsilon ’58] Senior Inspector, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Former Foreign Service Officer, United States Information Agency in the Middle East, France, and Brazil; Former Senior Vice President, Meridian International Center, Washington, D.C.; Former U.S. Ambassador to the State of Qatar
CHARLES B. RANGEL [Alpha Gamma Lambda ’64] Member, United States House of Representatives (D-NY); Former Chairman, U.S. House Ways and Means Committee; Dean, New York State Congressional Delegation; Founding Member, Congressional Black Caucus
IVORY TOLDSON [Nu Psi ’92] Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology Program, and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Negro Education, Howard University; Senior Research Analyst, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
CORNEL WEST [Zeta Beta Lambda ’96] Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Christian Practice, Union Theological Seminary; Professor Emertius, Princeton University; Former Professor, Yale, Harvard, University of Paris
RAPPORTEUR Hartford T. Jennings Sr., United States Foreign Service Officer (retired) 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.7
FROM THE CHAIR
Of all the topics considered by members of the World Policy Council over the years, including those not written on, none has been more persistent and recurring than climate change. This was especially true in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, an event difficult to ignore by even the most skeptical of naysayers. The fact that racial minorities and the impoverished seemed to be the most severely affected by the resulting devastation of such phenomena played no small role in keeping the topic alive for WPC members. From the start, there has been little or hardly any difference of opinion on the reality of climate change. The questions for members as for so many others have had to do with causes, environmental and human impact, and the possibility of available remedies. A small library of research studies, articles from both scientific and popular media sources, and now a few volumes emerged over the years, fueling discussions and detailed consideration of climate change issues. However, it was the appearance of an expert on many of these topics at Alpha Phi Alpha’s General Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in the summer of 2015 that stimulated the move from reflection to action. Dr. Warren M. Washington, a scientist in the forefront of weather modeling and climate change issues, was considered ideally suited to lead the World Policy Council in discussion on this subject. He did so with surpassing expertise and skill. Given the special nature, complexity, and also significance of the subject, the World Policy Council decided to invite Dr. Washington to prepare an article on the topic, the first time the council has enlisted a guest author and only the second time in its history that it has devoted an entire issue to a single topic. [The other single subject issue consisted of an evaluation of the Obama Administration, which was published in September 2012.] We note with special pride that the scientist and author in this climate change issue is also a brother in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. We welcome him. We also proudly note that with this publication on climate change, the World Policy Council observes the twentieth year of its existence. Happy anniversary to one and all!
Horace G. Dawson Jr. Chairman The World Policy Council
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.9
THE COUNCIL’S INTRODUCTION
IN THE WORLD POLICY COUNCIL’S EVALUATIVE REPORT ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S FIRST FOUR YEARS WE NOTED, “WITH DRAMATIC CLIMATE CHANGE ALREADY UPON US, [PRESIDENT OBAMA’S] RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION FOR THE LONG HAUL MAY BE CRITICAL.” AS THE WANING DAYS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TENURE UNFOLD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POLITICAL CHALLENGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FORMULATION ARE FORMIDABLE. THE PRESIDENT HAS DEMONSTRATED HIS COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MOST RECENTLY BY HIS LEADERSHIP IN THE PARIS CLIMATE SUMMIT AND THE DIFFICULT DECISION TO STOP THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROJECT.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.11
Nonetheless, the urgency of tackling climate change is clear and present. Assuming that scientific explanations for the escalating worldwide temperature rises are valid, time appears to be running out. The melting polar ice caps, the rising sea level, the crippling droughts throughout the middle latitudes, the increasing frequency and ferocity of tropical storms, and the challenges to our business-as-usual water usage are staring us in the face. That phrase, “assuming that scientific explanations for the escalating worldwide temperature rises are valid,” is the key to this report. There remain doubters and naysayers, especially among those whose interests would be harmed in the short run by expensive and disruptive action to reduce dramatically the man-made contribution to greenhouse gases. So how valid is the alarming science? This report, by fraternity brother Dr. Warren Washington, is timely for us and vitally important for our successors. Dr. Washington has been in the forefront of the science and policy formulation of climate change for half a century. He gives us a cogent review of progress of climatological study, convincingly demonstrating that we now have tools that can very precisely measure the planet’s history over millennia, especially the period of the intensified burning of fossil fuel as we have built modern societies. Our ability to predict the future impact of our contribution to greenhouse gases is now very highly developed. As he concluded, “…near term climate change is inevitable. Even if the greenhouse concentrations are held fixed, the climate will still be changing to adjust to a new climate state.” Facing that reality and taking action to mitigate its effects will require, as Dr. Washington stated, an inter-generational policy.
ABSENT SUCH A SUSTAINED EFFORT, DR. WASHINGTON GIVES US A STARK PICTURE OF THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE CURRENT TREND. It is a picture of a future we will not wish to face. He then issues a call to action in a series of recommendations based on the need for science to redirect its collective effort to help policymakers and the public at regional, national, and global scales. The WPC is extremely grateful to Brother Dr. Washington for this report. We are confident it will raise within the fraternity awareness of the scope of the issue and shape our ability to encourage political action and evaluate our political leaders. The WPC believes the fraternity at large and individual brothers should take positive action to ensure that this report receives wide distribution among policymakers. We should hold our political leaders responsible for taking bold action at every level—local, regional, and international—to face these challenges before it really is too late. Every vote we cast should be considered in the context of a candidate’s commitment to protection of the planet.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The author, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has been engaged in climate computer modeling for more then 50 years. He and his NCAR team shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize because of their contributions to climate change assessments prepared by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He received the Alpha Phi Alpha Award of Merit in 2015. He currently chairs the Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program. He prepared this paper at the request of the WPC. Interest in climate change has grown greatly for two reasons: (1) scientists have significantly improved their understanding of the causes of climate change in the last 50 years and (2) IPCC assessments have increased the understanding of the phenomenon for the policymakers and the public.
HISTORY The Norwegian scientist Vihelm Bjerknes developed the idea of modeling the atmosphere in the early 1900s. He and others later laid the groundwork for the Earth System Models (ESMs) that integrate biological and chemical cycles with weather data and climate information today. Baron Jean-Baptiste Fourier published the first paper examining the warming effect of increasing the amount of certain gases in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect) in 1824. Research by many successors, and particularly the work of Charles David (Dave) Keeling and many others, has led climate scientists to conclude that the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to the warming of the Earth’s climate.
SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS Contemporary climate models include atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land cover components. They are used to explore past, present, and future climate changes. Researchers believe that computer models are the most reliable tool for investigating both present and future climate change along with extensive observations from satellite and in
situ measurements. Scientific studies indicate that there has been little change in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere over the last 2 millennia, with the exception of a marked recent increase over the past 50 years. While both natural occurrences and human activities contribute to climate change, scientists have concluded that the warming of the atmosphere over the last 50 years is primarily due to mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Many researchers expect that both mitigation strategies (cutting back on the use of fossil fuels) and adaptation strategies (adjusting to warmer temperatures and higher sea levels) will be needed to deal with future climate change. Adaptation will be very costly.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS Temperatures will rise throughout this century and beyond. Precipitation patterns will change. Drought areas and heat waves will likely increase; cold waves will diminish. Hurricanes and tropical storms will increase in intensity and frequency. Sea levels will continue to rise at an increasing rate.
FUTURE PROSPECTS In the 2015 Paris Agreement, 195 nations agreed to cut back on fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases. For this mechanism to work properly, very delicate and important negotiations among those nations are required.
MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY Rather than giving equal weight to the views of those who believe climate change is real and skeptics of climate change, the media should be careful to indicate which sources are credible and which are not as well as the weight of evidence brought to bear on the subject.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: (1) climate scientists should give more attention to providing climate change solutions to policymakers and the public; (2) climate scientists should do more research on preventing climate change; (3) U.S. scientists should continue working with their foreign counterparts on climate change; (4) climate change scientists should continue to explore and refine various mitigation and adaptation strategies; and (5) the media should give greater credence and emphasis to facts supported by scientific study in reporting on climate change and its impacts. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.15
SHORT BIOGRAPHY
WARREN M. WASHINGTON IS A SENIOR SCIENTIST AND FORMER HEAD OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH SECTION AND DIRECTOR OF THE CLIMATE AND GLOBAL DYNAMICS DIVISION AT THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (NCAR) IN BOULDER, COLORADO. HIS EXPERTISE IS IN ATMOSPHERIC AND CLIMATE RESEARCH. He has engaged in research for over 50 years and has given advice, testimony, and lectures on global climate change. Dr. Washington has been a member of the President’s National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and has had presidential appointments in the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and W. Bush administrations. More recently, he served on the National Science Board as a member and as its chair. Dr. Washington has written more than 150 publications. With Claire Parkinson, he co-authored a book that is considered a standard reference on climate modeling, An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling. He has also published an autobiography, Odyssey in Climate Modeling, Global Warming, and Advising Five Presidents. Dr. Washington has many awards, including being a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the American Meteorological Society (former president), the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He and other members of his group at NCAR shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as significant contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. Dr. Washington has honorary degrees from Oregon State University, Bates College, and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He has been the principal investigator for the University for Atmospheric Research and the U.S. Department of Energy cooperative agreement that carries out climate research. In 2010, he was awarded the National Medal of Science, the nation’s highest science award, by President Obama. Dr. Washington earned a B.S. degree in physics and an M.S. degree in meteorology from Oregon State University and a Ph.D. in meteorology from Pennsylvania State University. He has served on a number of national research committees of the National Academies and is currently serving as chair of the Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program. More information can be found at http:// www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/warren/. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.17
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE?
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.19
INTRODUCTION
“SCIENCE, ACCUMULATED AND REVIEWED OVER DECADES, TELLS US THAT OUR PLANET IS CHANGING IN WAYS THAT WILL HAVE PROFOUND IMPACTS ON ALL OF HUMANKIND.… THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY FEELING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE DON’T HAVE TIME TO DENY IT—THEY’RE BUSY DEALING WITH IT.” -PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, 2013
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.21
As a scientist who has been engaged for more than 50 years in climate computer modeling, I would like to offer a brief analysis of the status of research that has helped the nation and the world better understand climate change and its impacts on society. There are mainly two types of climate change: natural changes and changes caused by mankind.
THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY NOW BETTER UNDERSTANDS THE MAJOR CAUSES OF PAST, PRESENT, AND EXPECTED FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE OF EXTENSIVE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH EFFORTS. My special area of expertise is in building and using climate computer models that are valuable tools in establishing the causes of climate changes. I am also well aware of the observational evidence of climate change, and I will include that in my analysis. My colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and I were one of the first four groups in the world that began the difficult task of building computer climate models in the early 1960s. In August 2015, my fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity bestowed on me the organization’s highest honor, the Alpha Award of Merit, at the body’s 109th Anniversary Convention in Charlotte, N.C. It was, according to the citation, “in recognition of the mentorship and leadership you have performed in the fields of engineering, meteorology, and arts and sciences, helping to influence young minds of color onward and upward toward the light.” Ambassador Horace G. Dawson Jr., also an Alpha and chairman of the organization’s World Policy Council (WPC), asked me to speak to the council about climate change, a subject long under consideration by that group, which is known as “Alpha’s think tank.” My presentation to the council at Howard University in October 2015
prompted Dr. Dawson and Dr. Henry Ponder, a former general president of the fraternity, to ask me to prepare an article for the WPC on the science of climate change and its related policy issues. This paper responds to that request. Parts of this article are modified from my presentation at the spring 2006 meeting of the American Philosophical Society, which was published in the same year1.
INTEREST IN CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GROWN GREATLY FOR TWO REASONS. One is that the worldwide climate science community has over the last 50 years significantly improved its understanding of the causes of climate change with respect to both natural phenomena and the activities of mankind. The second is that the worldwide science community has provided advice on climate change on a regular basis to policymakers through the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has provided policymakers the scientific evidence it has acquired over the years in the form of five assessments. The scientists who produced those assessments were given the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The IPCC’s work has been criticized by some elements of society that will be negatively affected by efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases. The scientific community has successfully countered virtually all these criticisms. The National Academies of Science and similar organizations have been particularly active in defending the findings of the IPCC. The scientific community has provided useful and timely information to policymakers and the public about this major societal issue. The difficult choice for the world community is which path forward it will take. There are some hopeful signs that serious efforts will be mounted to deal with the climate change problem. These prospects will be discussed later in this analysis.
1 Washington, W.M., 2006: Computer Modeling the Twentieth- and Twenty-FirstCentury Climate, American Philosophical Society, 150:3, 414-427. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.23
THE HISTORICAL BEGINNING OF BUILDING MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM
THE ACTUAL BEGINNINGS OF BUILDING MODELS OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE CLIMATE SYSTEM CAN BE TRACED TO NORWEGIAN METEOROLOGIST AND PHYSICIST VIHELM BJERKNES, WHO IN 1904 ARTICULATED THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES2: “If it is true, as every scientist believes, that subsequent atmospheric states develop from the preceding ones according to physical law, then it is apparent that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the rational solution of forecasting [and associated climate prediction] problems are the following: 1) a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the state of the atmosphere [climate] at the initial time, and 2) a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the laws according to which one state of the atmosphere [climate] develops from another.”
2
Bjerknes, V., Das Problem von der Wettervorhersage, Betrachtet vom Standpunkt der
Mechanik und der Physik. Meteor. Z., 21, 1-7. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.25
The square brackets denote the author’s application of Bjerknes’s principles to climate prediction. Although Bjerknes wrote about weather prediction, his words are also relevant for climate modeling because weather models were the precursors of computer models of the atmosphere, oceans, land-vegetation, and hydrological components, which later became coupled and developed into state-of-the-art climate system models. Now climate system models are rapidly becoming Earth System Models (ESMs), which also integrate biological and chemical cycles into the overall system. Lewis Fry Richardson, a British meteorologist, was actually the first scientist to formulate the atmospheric prediction equations into a form similar to that used in modern weather and climate forecasting models. He performed the first numerical model prediction of weather while on duty in France as an ambulance driver during World War I. Interestingly, Richardson did not want to take part in the battles as a combatant because he was a Quaker with pacifist beliefs so he helped the war effort as part of the Society of Friends who financially supported an ambulance service.3 Richardson wrote a famous book4 describing how he performed calculations for the model and the computational
3 Hunt, J.C.R. 1993: A General Introduction to the Life and Work of L. F. Richardson, in Collected Papers of Lewis Fry Richardson, Vol. 1 Meteorology and Numerical Analysis, General Editor P. G. Drazin, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1-27. 4 Richardson, L. F. 1922: Weather Prediction by Numerical Process, Cambridge University Press, reprinted by Dover, New York, 1965, 236 pp.
problems he encountered. At that time, he carried out his calculations with a hand crank mechanical calculator while waiting between battles. In the latter part of his book, he actually outlined how the calculations could be carried out in a computationally efficient and fast fashion, very similar to how modern supercomputer systems perform the computations of computer models. But Richardson describes a process in which a large number of people perform the calculations in parallel with mechanical calculators.
THE MAJOR TASK FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS OR SO FOR THE CLIMATE MODELING COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TO FOLLOW THE DREAM OF PIONEERS LIKE BJERKNES AND RICHARDSON. Today we are actually seeing the dream realized. The modeling community has made spectacular progress; however, there are still many obstacles to overcome. The challenge for the future is to continue on the path of inclusion of more realistic interactive physical processes such as the complexity of clouds and land cover and vegetation effects. Modelers are constantly moving to higher resolution systems as supercomputers become faster and more capable of solving the mathematical equations. Also, there is constant searching for more accurate and efficient methods of solving the model equations.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.27
EARLY SCIENTIFIC THOUGHTS ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
THERE IS AN INTERESTING HISTORY OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED BY HISTORY OF SCIENCE SCHOLARS. I DRAW ATTENTION TO DR. JAMES RODGER FLEMING’S BOOK HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CLIMATE CHANGE.5 THIS BOOK ACTUALLY GOES INTO THE DETAILS OF REFERENCES, MISQUOTES, AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. The famous mathematician Baron Jean-Baptiste Fourier was the first to suggest the basic concepts in his 1824 paper Remarques générales.6 Fleming points out the following statement that is suggestive of the greenhouse effect: “The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.”7 Here “state of light” refers to solar light and “non-luminous” refers to terrestrial light or light that is more in the infrared range. Fleming goes into detail about an instrument of Fourier’s time called the heliothermometer or solar thermometer and how Fourier referred to this instrument to make his inferences. Fourier speaks about luminous heat or light, which we now refer to as solar radiation. Solar radiation passes through the mostly transparent atmosphere and heats the land, and the terrestrial or infrared radiation from the heated surface is re-emitted into the atmosphere. Thus, Fourier’s understanding is generally correct except for some very important radiation effects that were not known in 1824. One of the key scientists who delved into the understanding of radiative properties of greenhouse gases was John Tyndall, an Irish scientist. He began in 1859 to experiment with the absorption of infrared radiation
5 194 pp.
Oxford University Press, 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, New York,
6 Fourier, Joseph, 1824: “Remarques générales sure les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires, Ann.cim. phys (Paris), 2nd ser., 27 (1824), 136-167. The English translation can be found in Ebeneser Burgess’s Amer. J. Sci. 32 (1827): 1-20. 7
See Burgess translation on page 13. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.29
by certain atmospheric gases. Essentially what he did was develop laboratory equipment using a tube that he filled with various gases in the laboratory. He then applied a flaming Bunsen burner to one end of the tube and at the other end of the tube he had an instrument that measured the intensity of the light from the burner. Tyndall showed that atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor, ozone, and hydrocarbons like methane were major absorbers of light from the Bunsen burner whereas other air gases such as nitrogen and oxygen absorbed very little radiation. For this pioneering research and other work he was awarded membership in the Royal Society. He went on to do more research applying his newfound knowledge about the role of greenhouse gases in understanding atmospheric temperature structure. Svante Arrhenius was probably the first scientist to raise serious concerns in 18968 about increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its effect on warming the Earth’s climate. This effect was of concern at that time because in the 1890s the Industrial Revolution was in full swing in Europe and America. One of the main drivers for the revolution was the dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuel, at that time mostly coal. By simple deduction, Arrhenius knew the surface temperature was dependent on the amount of greenhouse gases. He knew the atmosphere was made up of greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. Arrhenius inferred that increases of carbon dioxide would mean a warmer planet. Interestingly, Arrhenius estimated in 1896 that an increase of carbon dioxide by 2.5 to 3 times would cause the Earth to warm at the surface by 8-9oC. Note the conversion of temperature between the two scales, 1 degree centigrade (oC) converts to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (oF), which is a warming not too different from what present-day advanced climate models are simulating. The comparison is interesting but not really accurate or comparable because Arrhenius’s estimate of global warming was based on a very simple calculation without all the complex interactions that are known to exist in the observed climate system as well as in present-generation climate models. In 1938, G.S. Calendar, an English steam engineer, became interested in the role that CO2 and water vapor might play in climate change. He looked into the infrared terrestrial spectrum and put forth new ideas on how mankind’s emission of CO2 could be a bigger factor in causing climate change. His work was limited by knowledge of accurate measurements of CO2 concentrations in the real atmosphere. In the 1950s Charles David (Dave) Keeling of Scripps Institute of
8 Arrhenius, Svante, 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground, Phil. Mag. Ser. 5, 237.
Oceanography began putting together a very new and more accurate method of measuring the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Up until that time the measurements varied widely. With his new and more accurate technique, Keeling tested the air at Mauna Loa Observatory, which is on one of the highest mountains in Hawaii. The reason that he used air samples from this place was that the samples would not be contaminated by local sources of CO2. Also the air at this location largely comes from long distances and is well mixed in its west to east mid-latitude journey over the Pacific Ocean. Keeling found that there was a strong seasonal cycle of CO2 concentration, which is lower in the spring and summer and higher in fall and winter. This seasonal cycle is caused by vegetation growing in spring and summer, which takes this gas out of the atmosphere. In the fall and winter seasons the vegetation is decaying and giving back to the atmosphere. More importantly, when Keeling continued his measurements over many years he found the annual concentrations showed a definite increasing trend of this.
Figure 1 shows the famous Charles David Keeling Curve, which he started in 1957. Note the seasonal up-and-down pattern superimposed on an increasing trend that is caused mostly by burning of fossil fuels. After Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son, Ralph Keeling, took over extending the record at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. 9 See also: Keeling, C. D., and J. C. Pales Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Project, Report No. 3, 1965. Also see http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.31
KEELING’S MEASUREMENTS AWAKENED THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY TO CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT MANKIND’S USE OF FOSSIL FUELS COULD BE A MAJOR FACTOR IN CHANGING THE EARTH’S CLIMATE. What was causing this increase? It took the research community several decades to sort out the factors involved. The primary reasons were mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. A smaller contributing factor was the destroying and burning of forests, which also released CO2 into the atmosphere. Without going into too much detail, much of the CO2 added to the atmosphere goes into the upper ocean and is leading to a more acidic and warmer upper ocean.
Researchers have found another way to measure CO2 concentrations in Earth’s history. Scientists found that bubbles of ancient air are trapped in the world’s glaciers. Drilling into the glaciers and retrieving ice cores became a major research activity. These ice core measurements have provided a window into understanding past climates before human activities, especially at locations like Greenland, Antarctica, the Andes, and the Himalayas. Some of the ice core measurements go back more than 250,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. They show quite clearly how CO2 levels and temperatures have changed between past ice ages and interglacial periods.
GENERALLY, THE HIGHER THE CO2 CONCENTRATIONS, THE WARMER WILL BE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURES AND VICE VERSA. WE HAVE CLEVER METHODS OF ESTIMATING PAST TEMPERATURES IN ICE CORES BY EXAMINING THE ISOTOPES OF OXYGEN. OTHER METHODS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS ARE ANCIENT PLANT POLLENS, LAKE SEDIMENTS, AND TREE RINGS.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.33
CONTEMPORARY CLIMATE MODELS
A SIMPLE SCHEMATIC WILL BE USED TO SHOW WHAT IS INCLUDED IN ALL CONTEMPORARY CLIMATE MODELS. SEE FIGURE 2. AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE FIGURE, ATMOSPHERE, OCEAN, SEA ICE, AND LAND COVER COMPONENTS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM ARE REPRESENTED IN A SIMPLE MANNER. WITHIN THE LAND COMPONENT ARE VEGETATION PROCESSES AS WELL AS SNOW, SOIL MOISTURE, AND RIVER TRANSPORT. THE LATTER BRINGS FRESH WATER TO THE OCEANS TO COMPLETE THE WATER CYCLE. BOTH DETAILED SOLAR AND INFRARED RADIATION AND ITS INTERACTION WITH CLOUDS AND CONVECTION ARE ALSO INCLUDED.10 SOME OF THE CLIMATE MODELS INCLUDE SOME ASPECTS OF BOTH ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY ALTHOUGH THIS ASPECT OF CLIMATE MODELS IS UNDERGOING RAPID DEVELOPMENT. SEE WASHINGTON AND PARKINSON (2005)11 FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL CLIMATE MODELING. 10 physics.
Note the radiation treatment in climate modeling involves very complex molecular
11 Washington, W. M. and C. L. Parkinson, 2005: An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling, 2nd Edition, University Science Book, Mill Valley, California, 355 pp. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.35
Figure 2 This figure shows in simple schematic form the various climate model components: atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land/vegetation.
Present-day climate models simulate virtually all of the principal climate features. At higher spatial resolutions, researchers find more realistic hurricane formation in the global model. Furthermore, high-resolution ocean and sea ice models also show very realistic smaller scale features such as the Gulf Stream and small eddies in essentially all of the ocean basins. As mentioned in the early part of this article, one of the principal reasons that climate models have been developed is to explore past, present, and future climate changes. When we refer to the present climate in this article we are speaking mostly about the 20th century and when we refer to the future we are referring to the rest of the 21st century and beyond. It should be added that extensive literature has been written on the use of climate models in helping to explain the various paleoclimate periods extending back in time from recent ice ages to the climate of over 4 billion years ago when the Earth was thought to be first formed. The recent period is often selected for intense study because the research community has some limited instrument measurements of the climate variables such as surface air temperature over parts of the globe. As we go further into the late 20th century the observed measurement of climate variables in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased greatly worldwide. Although the coverage of ground measurements and satellite measurement data is far from perfect, it is sufficiently extensive to give scientists a great deal of information on the various climate mechanisms as well as the trends in the climate system. We try to answer several key questions with present-day climate models. Can climate models help us understand the recent climate change and predict future climate change? The research community believes they can and that computer models are the most reliable tool for investigating both present and future climate change. One of the questions often asked by policymakers and the public is how to validate our climate models with observations. The answer is that the world climate modeling community is and has been continually comparing its models with observations. There are still difficulties in being able to demonstrate that the models are simulating all of the major aspects of the climate system correctly. They are certainly capable of simulating essentially all of the primary aspects of the climate. Even though there are some significant scientific uncertainties, on the whole, the climate model simulations agree well with observations. For example, the models capture with good accuracy the changes of the seasons, the major regional climatic patterns such as precipitation, temperature
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.37
zones, and regional climates like monsoons. El Niño events are simulated as well as their responses in large-scale teleconnections (El Niño is a technical term indicating certain forcing downstream effects in one place on another location) and also the jet stream positions and intensity and mid-latitude storm systems with the related cold and warm fronts. The success of our prediction when a specific El Niño event actually starts or ends is limited, but once one starts to develop we can often simulate its future development. As was briefly mentioned earlier, the atmospheric sciences benefit from enormous amounts of historical data in atmosphere, in oceans, and on land. Also today we have much more satellite data with which to compare our models in reconstructing the climate from the 1960s to the present. Without such data we would not have made so much progress in computer modeling. We note, however, that there is still limited observational data over some parts of the world’s oceans and in some polar areas. Why do model projections of future climate change differ? Not all of the reasons are completely known; however, part of the explanation is that there are differing methods for solving the basic equations and representing the various physical processes such as precipitation and clouds. The modeling community is working closely and collaboratively, both nationally and internationally, to sort out why different computer models give somewhat different projections of future climate change. At this point, it is useful to analyze the basic aspect of global warming. The term “radiative forcing” at the top of the atmosphere is often used to describe how much additional energy is added into the climate system. The Earth’s climate system absorbs solar radiation that falls upon it. The absorbed solar radiation must be in approximate balance with the infrared radiation that is going out to space at the top of the atmosphere. If there is not a balance of radiative energy at the top of the atmosphere, the system will be warming or cooling depending on the sign of the imbalance. As greenhouse gases are added to the Earth’s atmosphere, there is more trapping of the infrared radiation in the lower part of the atmosphere. In response, the overall system must warm up in the bottom part of the atmosphere, while the stratosphere will cool to achieve a new balance at the top of the atmosphere.
IN THIS CASE THERE IS A REDUCTION IN THE OUTGOING INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE INCREASED GREENHOUSE GASES AND THAT IS TERMED THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. If we look at two other planets in the solar system, Mars and Venus, we can see that Mars has very little atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor while on the other hand Venus has very high concentrations of greenhouse gases. Mars has an average surface temperature of -50oC while the average surface temperature of Venus is 460oC, as opposed to 15oC for the Earth. Of course, Mars is further from the sun than the Earth, and Venus is closer to the sun. Thus, the radiative balance for the two planets is a combination of the solar forcing difference and the amount of greenhouse gases that determine the basic surface temperature for each of the planets. For the same solar forcing, the amount of greenhouse gases largely determines to first-order accuracy the surface temperature. The Earth’s atmosphere has both carbon dioxide and water vapor as the major greenhouse gases and they, along with the solar flux absorbed in the atmosphere, largely determine how warm the planet becomes. As the carbon dioxide concentration increases, the system starts to warm up and the water vapor content of the atmosphere also increases because of enhanced evaporation over ocean areas. This related water vapor increase is a strong positive feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate system.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.39
RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE OVER THE LAST MILLENNIUM
DURING THE MOST RECENT TIMES (I.E., AFTER THE 1860S) DIRECT INSTRUMENTAL MEASUREMENTS OF TEMPERATURES ARE LIMITED IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON EARTH. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS MADE USE OF “PROXY” DATA TO ESTIMATE NEARSURFACE AIR TEMPERATURES BEFORE THE 1860S. THE TYPES OF PROXY DATA ARE TREE RINGS AND LAKE SEDIMENTS (SEE MANN AND JONES12). THE PROXY DATA ARE CALIBRATED BY USING THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD TIME PERIOD FOR ESTABLISHING CORRELATIONS.
12 Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.41
FIGURE 3
Figure 3. This chart shows the reconstructions of proxy temperature going back in time 2,000 years, using historical temperature measurements, ocean and lake sediments, tree rings, and so forth for northern and southern hemispheres, global and northern hemisphere minus southern hemisphere. In the science literature this is sometimes referred to as the “hockey stick� graph because there is little temperature change in the last 2 millennia except for the last 50 years or so. This demonstrates that the recent warming is caused by humankind’s increase of greenhouse gas concentrations. The thick red line is the smoothed instrumental record and the yellow shading shows 95% confidence intervals for standard reconstructions.
FIGURE 3 SHOWS THAT THE PERIOD IN THE LAST 30–50 YEARS IS UNUSUALLY WARM. MANN ET AL. (2003) LATER SHOWED THAT THIS TEMPERATURE RECORD CAN BE EXTENDED BACK 2,000 YEARS, SO WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT INDICATION THAT THE LATE 20TH CENTURY WARMING IS REMARKABLY DIFFERENT. MORE RECENTLY SEVERAL RESEARCHERS HAVE TRIED TO CONSTRUCT SIMILAR PROXY TEMPERATURE RECORDS LIKE MANN ET AL. AND THEY OBTAIN SIMILAR GRAPHS THAT SHOW THE LAST 20TH CENTURY WARMING IS THE LARGEST OVER THE PAST MILLENNIUM. ON THE FAR RIGHT IS A HEAVY RED LINE SHOWING INSTRUMENTAL OBSERVED TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN THE 20TH CENTURY.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.43
NATURAL VERSUS ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
SOME POLICYMAKERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CONTINUE TO DENY THAT MANKIND IS CHANGING THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. ARE CHANGES THAT WE ARE OBSERVING ONLY NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM OR ARE THEY CAUSED IN PART BY MANKIND? THE MAJOR NATURAL FORCINGS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM ARE VOLCANIC AND SOLAR VARIATIONS. THESE ELEMENTS AFFECT THE SEASONAL-MILLENNIAL TIME SCALES OF THE CLIMATE. THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS MILLENNIAL TIME SCALE GIVES RISE TO THE GOING INTO AND OUT OF ICE AGES. MILUTIN MILANKOVITICH, A SERBIAN GEOPHYSICIST AND ASTRONOMER, PROPOSED IN THE 1920S ORBITAL CHANGES IN THE EARTH’S ANNUAL TRIP AROUND THE SUN, AND THESE CHANGES OF SOLAR FORCING DETERMINED WHETHER THE EARTH WOULD BE IN ICE AGE AND INTERGLACIAL PERIODS. OF COURSE, THESE CHANGES ARE PART OF THE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCING AND THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO HUMANKIND ACTIVITY. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.45
A relatively small number of climate scientists are skeptical of Global Warming. Clearly different points of view must be taken seriously by the scientific community to see if they are valid. Some of the controversy concerns estimates of satellite measurements of lower atmospheric temperature changes. Earlier satellite measurements showed little agreement with in situ balloon-based observations of the late 20th century. More recent satellite analysis estimated by researchers shows a warming trend in the lower atmosphere that is in closer agreement with climate model simulations. Another area of skepticism is whether land cover changes can account for the observed surface warming. This too is an area of controversy; however, most of the analysis indicates that land cover changes have a relatively small effect compared to the greenhouse gas-caused warming effect. There is now ample evidence that the surface ocean temperatures have warmed significantly since the 1950s. It is interesting to note that the last two years, 2014 and 2015, both established records of globally averaged surface air temperature as the hottest. The 2015 temperatures will be shown in figure 6. Many researchers expect that both mitigation and adaptation strategies will be needed to deal with future climate change. Mitigation is cutting back on the use of fossil fuels. Adaptation is adjusting to the expected increase in global warming and rising sea level. Note that the latter is likely to lead to huge financial costs compared to mitigation. Climate models have capability to provide key information on the various options and give insights about whether and how to geoengineer the climate system. That may seem like an obscene phrase to use—
“geoengineering the planet”—but we are already changing the climate system and will be changing it more as time goes by. We need to think about not only the ethical aspects of our actions but also what will be their effects or impacts. Changes in one region of the globe can cause changes in other regions. These sorts of connections are often referred to as teleconnections in the scientific literature. Near-term climate change is inevitable. Even if the greenhouse gas concentrations are held fixed, the climate will still be changing to adjust to a new climate state. Thus the climate system is “committed” to change even if the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations is curbed. The reason this is happening is that the increased greenhouse gases in the climate system in turn cause an imbalance in energy at the top of the atmosphere that we referred to earlier. When we burn fossil fuels, the resulting CO2 molecules remain in the atmosphere with an average lifetime of about 90 years. Some molecules remain for centuries and other molecules last a much shorter time. The only way the Earth system can regain its balance is by warming the lower part of the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface including the top layers of the ocean. Warming of the ocean at deeper depths will take much longer. The overall process will likely take several centuries. However, if the greenhouse gas concentrations are decreased more rapidly, then the imbalance of energy at the top of the atmosphere will be restored to balance more quickly and the overall climate system will not continue to warm. We also need to think about government policies that will yield the optimum effect. Any societal solution will likely require an intergenerational policy.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.47
Figure 4, on the next page, shows an example of a comparison between a climate model simulation from the NCAR/U.S. Department of Energy Parallel Climate Model (PCM), and the observations from 1870 to 2000 (Washington et al., 2000)13. The natural forcings of the climate system are volcanic and solar variations. Note that natural forcings explain some of the increase in global warming in the early part of the 20th century. When the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols is added to the natural forcings, the climate model simulations show a general pattern of warming that closely follows the observations. Thus the solar and volcanic forcings seem to be the important factors in the early part of the century, but in the latter part of the 20th century the largest factor is the increase in greenhouse gases. The sulfate aerosols and other types of aerosols have a smaller cooling effect, in particular in the mid-20th century. It is possible to identify individual volcanic cooling events that last about 18 months; for example, the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption caused a cooling event which is well simulated in climate models and compares favorably with the observed temporary cooling.
13 Washington, W.M., et al., 2000: Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations, Cim. Dyn., 16, 755-774.
FIGURE 4
Figure 4. Ensemble simulations from the DOE-supported Parallel Climate Model. Shown are 1870 to 2000 global observed temperatures (heavy black line), natural climate forcing from volcanic eruptions and solar changes (medium dark line), and anthropogenic climate forcing from increasing greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols (lighter line). The shaded are the range of five member ensemble of simulations. See Meehl et al. (2004)14 for more details.
14 Meehl, G. A., W. M. Washington, C. Amman, J. M. Arblaster, T. M. L. Wigley, and C. Tebaldi (2004), Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings and 20th century climate, J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.49
Figure 5 shows the global average temperature warming for the 20th century and the 21st century. In order to study how climate is changing in the future we need a tool such as a climate model that can make projections for the future. These projections are based on various pathways for how humans worldwide will deal with future climate change. For example if we talk about not doing anything at all in terms of cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, then this can be considered as a business-as-usual scenario. The research community considers that this type of scenario will lead to the worst possible impacts on the world’s climate system. In the scientific literature Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) indicates how much global warming should be expected given different assumptions about the measures that may be taken to curb the increase in greenhouse gases. RCP 8.5 is the worst-case scenario in which no cutting of emissions is done to mitigate the growing increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Figure 5 shows several RCPs that are being used in the research community. Obviously for the lowest RCP2.6 some process must be done to take CO2 and other greenhouse gases directly out of the atmosphere. If that were possible the potential warming would be small by the end of the century compared to RCP 8.5.
FIGURE 5
Figure 5. This figure shows the global mean surface temperature from 1950 to 2100. The black line is the observed. RCP8.5 is the red heavy line from the mean of 39 climate model studies and the shading red is the spread of the 39 different model simulations. It should be noted that RCP8.5 is basically the business-as-usual scenario without much mitigation of greenhouse gases. The blue mean line and shading shows a strong mitigation scenario. The scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 are between the two extremes. The figure was used in the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.51
The globally averaged temperature has warmed 0.7oC from 1900 to present as shown in Fig. 5. Most of this warming is taking place in the polar region, particularly in the Arctic and over land areas. What happens if the climate warms at 1 degree per decade? At that point, the nations of the world may, finally, get very serious about climate change, and drastic steps may be taken to cut back on fossil fuels. Government policymakers have great difficulty dealing with intergenerational problems such as climate change especially if the policies required to avoid future harm cause some immediate sacrifice. One of the authoritative sources on climate and climate change has been issued by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States and the United Kingdom’s Royal Society. It can be downloaded from the Internet and it describes the issues very clearly15. As the climate warms from the 19th century to the present by roughly 1.3oF, the ocean also is warming. This warming and the melting of glaciers is causing sea levels to rise. If nothing is done about climate change, then the world can expect sea levels to become 1.7 to 3.2 feet higher, which will cause many coastal regions to be flooded unless sea walls are built. Coastal storms will likely be stronger due to more atmospheric moisture in a warmer world resulting in stronger storm surges. Stronger storms will increase coastal flooding. Adapting to this change in climate will be very expensive for local and regional governments. One of the major policy issues for the United States is national flood insurance. The annual premiums that are collected from citizens for federal flood insurance amount to only several billion U.S. dollars and the federal payout to citizens for flood damage is about $20 billion. This government program is not sustainable in its current form. The private insurance companies are not interested in selling such bad risk types of insurance because they will lose money. Before we leave this section, it may be useful to look at what happened in the past year. Keep in mind that most of the preceding analysis has dealt with long-term averages. Note in Figure 6 that we have the annual globally averaged surface temperature plotted from year 1880 through 2010. Note that there is big jump in temperature in 2010, some of which is caused by an El Niùo year that typically leads to a warmer year.
15 http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-changeevidence-and-causes/
FIGURE 6
Figure 6. The globally averaged land surface temperature anomaly according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows a warming from 1880 through 2010. The base period is the 20th century and the 2015 year is 2.39°F (1.33°C) warmer. President Obama pointed out in his final State of the Union address to Congress and the public that “if you want to debate the science of climate change, feel free to do so—but you'll be pretty lonely. America's business leaders, the Pentagon, the majority of the American people, the scientific community, and nations around the world already know that now is the time to act.”
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.53
IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CHANGE
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS SHOWN THE MAJOR ASPECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ATTENTION IS ALSO NOW BEING DIRECTED TO WHAT ARE LIKELY TO BE THE IMPACTS AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM. There are numerous documents, such as the National Climate Assessment, that provide very detailed descriptions of possible impacts on various parts of the environment and society. The IPCC has also made some estimates of damage costs associated with climate change. It says, “The range of published evidence indicates that net damage costs of climate change are likely to be very significant and to increase over time.�16 Here is a partial list of impacts: 1.
Temperatures are expected to rise both globally and regionally throughout this century and beyond. This warming will affect all species of vegetation, animals, and ocean life. The changes will be uneven over the globe. Some places around the globe will become newly frost free and have longer growing seasons.
2.
Precipitation will increase in some areas and decrease in others. Observational evidence and climate model studies provide guidance on how much and where these changes will take place. Recent research has confirmed heavier precipitation events and they will increase more in the future.
3.
Bigger drought areas and more intense heat waves are expected. Cold waves will be less intense.
4.
Hurricanes and tropical storms will be more intense both in wind strength and precipitation. Also, such intense storms are expected to increase in frequency.
5.
Sea levels will continue to rise from 8 inches in the last century and faster in the present century and beyond depending on many factors such as how fast glaciers melt. The most recent estimates are 1.7 feet to 3.2 feet by the end of the 21st century. Note that we are already seeing coastal flooding in Miami, Florida as well as many other coastal regions of the world.
For the United States, the National Climate Assessment is the best onestop source for information on climate change impacts.17
16 IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 17. 17
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.55
THE 2015 PARIS AGREEMENT
IN 2015 THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD DECIDED TO MEET IN PARIS TO SEEK AN AGREEMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. WITHOUT QUESTION THE 2015 PARIS AGREEMENT IS A REMARKABLE EVENT IN THAT 195 NATIONS AGREED TO CUT BACK ON FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. THE AGREEMENT IS FORMALLY CALLED THE TWENTY-FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (COP-21). There have been previous attempts at climate negotiations but they really did not accomplish their goals of cutting back on emissions. Of the 195 nations, 186 submitted plans for targets for curtailing emissions that, if fully implemented, will allow attainment of 96 percent of the global target for controlling fossil fuel emissions. Every 5 years the nations will assess the target and revise emission cuts to reach a global surface temperature (GST) increase of 4oF. The COP-21 also established an “aspirational” target of 3.0oF for the GST. One key question is what this will mean for the United States and its policies. The Clean Power Plan that President Obama has put forth will hasten the shift in many states from the use of coal to natural gas. This change is already taking place because of cheaper gasoline from the fracking boom, increase of motor vehicle efficiency which was aided by Congressional action, and higher appliance efficiency standards. For example, California has put into place a more robust climate policy. It is anticipated that there will continue to be an increase in the use of renewable energy from sources such as the sun and wind. The largest emitters (China, the United States, Europe, and India) have submitted plans to cut back on greenhouse gases emissions, but some observers are skeptical about this agreement. Some feel it is not strong enough and others think it is too strong. It is significant that the parties to the agreement have a mechanism to assess every 5 years what nations are actually doing and to revise the targets. For this mechanism to work properly will require that very delicate and important negotiations among nations be accomplished. The mechanism for these negotiations is built into the Paris Agreement. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.57
THE MEDIA’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING SCIENCE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
THE MEDIA OF MASS COMMUNICATION ON WHICH THE PUBLIC GENERALLY RELIES FOR SCIENCE INFORMATION, AS IT DOES FOR MOST OTHER TYPES OF INFORMATION, HAVE INCREASING DIFFICULTY FULFILLING THIS ROLE. PART OF THE PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY IN THE UNITED STATES, IS THAT PUBLISHERS HAVE CUT BACK ON SCIENCE REPORTING IN MANY NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER FORMS OF MEDIA. Much of the news readership has shifted to social media, which do not have the same standards of journalism as the press. This problem is compounded by the great increase in science information that needs to be conveyed to the public in some form. In addition, many individuals are often confused by skeptics who contradict the conclusions of the majority of the scientific community by publications contending that they are offering both sides of complex scientific issues, even though one or the other side may lack credibility. This false objectivity breeds confusion as, for example, in the case of media treatment of whether or not smoking causes cancer. Equal treatment prevailed in many areas of the press long after clinical studies proved that it does. The same can be said about the burning of fossil fuels, which has long been identified as the leading cause of climate change. Although the other side of the argument need not and should not be entirely dismissed, the media should be careful to indicate which sources are credible and which are not as well as the weight of evidence brought to bear on the subject. More often than not, such science information emanates from national academies and other institutions. The need, therefore, is for more scientific information and more validity in science coverage.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.59
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IN DOING RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS WELL AS ADVISING THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF FORMER AND PRESENT PRESIDENTS. GENERALLY, MY VIEWS REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE AS WELL AS 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE. THIS OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH COMMUNITY SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR POLICY ISSUES.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.61
RECOMMENDATION 1 The national and international science communities have done an excellent job of developing discovery-driven science that has improved our understanding of climate change. Now those same science programs must broaden to help provide solutions for policymakers and the public at the local, regional, national, and global levels. They should include in an integrative and interdisciplinary manner the disciplines of the physical, ecological, engineering, and social sciences. They must provide useful information for policymakers and decision makers at all levels of government, and for the public.
RECOMMENDATION 2 Some of our research establishment will need to shift resources from discovery-driven research to use-driven research. Of course, both approaches in research will be required to be successful in providing needed information for policymakers.
RECOMMENDATION 3 Continue to develop enhanced observational, modeling, and decisionmaking capability related to the climate change issue.
RECOMMENDATION 4 The U.S. scientific community should continue to coordinate with the international science community in the assessment of climate change. One important aspect of climate change is that it is global with impacts well beyond national borders. The United States as a major emitter of greenhouse gases has a major responsibility to cooperate with other nations through both the COP21 process and the IPCC assessments. The Obama administration has worked with other major emitters to commit to lowering emissions. This achievement is a big step forward in efforts to prevent the worst effects of future climate change.
RECOMMENDATION 5 Climate change scientists should continue to explore and refine various mitigation and adaptation strategies. There is not likely to be a single solution to the climate change problem. A multiple approach allows different countries to mitigate and adapt to future climate change. Either approach will result in costs. One of the political leaders who has been dealing with the issue is former Vice President Al Gore (2016). He has produced a Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) talk on this issue. See: http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change?share=18c1aa357c
RECOMMENDATION 6 The media should provide more science information, including climate change information, which gives greater credence and emphasis to facts supported by scientific study.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.63
REFERENCES CLIMATE CHANGE: WHY IS IT AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE? PAGE 23 Washington, W.M., 2006: Computer Modeling the Twentieth-and Twenty-First-Century Climate, American Philosophical Society, 150:3, 414-427. PAGE 25 Bjerknes, V., Das Problem von der Wettervorhersage, Betrachtet vom Standpunkt der Mechanik und der Physik. Meteor. Z., 21, 1-7. PAGE 26 Hunt, J.C.R., 1993: A General Introduction to the Life and Work of L. F. Richardson, in Collected Papers of Lewis Fry Richardson, Vol. 1 Meteorology and Numerical Analysis, General Editor P. G. Drazin, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1-27. PAGE 27 Richardson, L. F. 1922: Weather Prediction by Numerical Process, Cambridge University Press, reprinted by Dover, New York, 1965, 236 pp. PAGE 28 Oxford University Press, 1998: Historical Perspectives on Climate Change, New York, 194 pp. PAGE 28 Fourier, Joseph, 1824: “Remarques générales sure les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires, Ann.cim. phys (Paris), 2nd ser., 27 (1824), 136-167. The English translation can be found in Ebeneser Burgess’s Amer. J. Sci. 32 (1827): 1-20. PAGE 29 Arrhenius, Svante, 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground, Phil. Mag. Ser. 5, 237.
PAGE 30 Keeling, C. D., and J. C. Pales, Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Project, Report No. 3, 1965. Also http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/ atmospheric_co2 PAGE 35 Washington, W. M. and C. L. Parkinson, 2005: An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling, 2nd Edition, University Science Book, Mill Valley, California, 355 pp. PAGE 41 Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003. PAGE 48 Washington, W.M., et al., 2000: Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations Clim. Dyn., 16, 755-774. PAGE 49 Meehl, G. A., W. M. Washington, C. Amman, J. M. Arblaster, T. M. L. Wigley, and C. Tebaldi, 2004, Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings and 20th century climate, J. Clim., 17, 3721–3727. PAGE 52 http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussionon-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/ PAGE 55 IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 17. PAGE 55 http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report Acknowledgment: Some of the research in this article was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Mary Washington, Yangyang Xu, Horace Dawson, Stephanie Shearer, and the Alpha Phi Alpha editorial staff assisted with preparation of the manuscript. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.65
THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS FRATERNITY SHALL BE: TO STIMULATE THE AMBITION OF ITS MEMBERS; TO PREPARE THEM FOR THE GREATEST USEFULNESS IN THE CAUSES OF HUMANITY, FREEDOM AND DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL; TO ENCOURAGE THE HIGHEST AND NOBLEST FORM OF MANHOOD; AND TO AID DOWN-TRODDEN HUMANITY IN ITS EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGHER SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND INTELLECTUAL STATUS.
SINCE ITS FOUNDING ON DECEMBER 4, 1906, ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY HAS SUPPLIED VOICE AND VISION TO THE STRUGGLE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD. Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans, was founded at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York by seven college men who recognized the need for a strong bond of brotherhood among African descendants in this country. The visionary founders, known as the “Jewels” of the fraternity, are Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle, and Vertner Woodson Tandy. The fraternity initially served as a study and support group for minority students who faced racial prejudice, both educationally and socially, at Cornell. The Jewel founders and early leaders of the fraternity succeeded in laying a firm foundation for Alpha Phi Alpha’s principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character, and the uplifting of humanity. Alpha Phi Alpha chapters were established at other colleges and universities, many of them historically black institutions, soon after the founding at Cornell. The first alumni chapter was established in 1911. While continuing to stress academic excellence among its members, Alpha also recognized the need to help correct the educational, economic, political, and social injustices faced by African Americans. Alpha Phi Alpha has long stood at the forefront of the African-American community’s fight for civil rights through leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Edward Brooke, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Andrew Young, William Gray, Paul Robeson, and many others. True to its form as the “first of firsts,” Alpha Phi Alpha has been interracial since 1945.
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.67
Henry Arthur Callis became a practicing physician, Howard University professor of medicine and prolific contributor to medical journals. Often regarded as the “philosopher of the founders” and a moving force in the fraternity’s development, he was the only one of the “Cornell Seven” to become general president. Prior to moving to Washington, D.C., he was a medical consultant to the Veterans Hospital in Tuskegee, Alabama. Upon his death in 1974, at age 87, the fraternity entered a time without any living Jewels. His papers were donated to Howard’s MoorlandSpingarn Research Center.
Charles Henry Chapman entered higher education and eventually became professor of agriculture at what is now Florida A&M University. A university funeral was held with considerable fraternity participation when he became the first Jewel to enter Omega Chapter in 1934. Described as “a brother beloved in the bonds,” Chapman was a founder of FAMU’s Beta Nu Chapter. During the organization stages of Alpha Chapter, he was the first chairman of the Committees on Initiation and Organization.
Eugene Kinckle Jones became the first executive secretary of the National Urban League. His 20-year tenure with the Urban League thus far has exceeded those of all his successors in office. A versatile leader, he organized the first three fraternity chapters that branched out from Cornell—Beta at Howard, Gamma at Virginia Union and the original Delta at the University of Toronto in Canada. In addition to becoming Alpha Chapter’s second president and joining with Callis in creating the fraternity name, Jones was a member of the first Committees on Constitution and Organization and helped write the fraternity ritual. He died in 1954.
George Biddle Kelley became the first African-American engineer registered in the state of New York. Not only was he the strongest proponent of the fraternity idea among the organization’s founders, the civil engineering student also became Alpha Chapter’s first president. In addition, he served on committees that worked out the handshake and ritual. Kelley was popular with the brotherhood. He resided in Troy, New York and was active with Beta Pi Lambda Chapter in Albany. He died in 1963.
Nathaniel Allison Murray pursued graduate work after completing his undergraduate studies at Howard. He later returned home to Washington, D.C., where he taught in public schools. Much of his career was spent at Armstrong Vocational High School in the District of Columbia. He was a member of Alpha Chapter’s first committee on organization of the new fraternal group, as well as the Committee on the Grip. The charter member of Washington’s Mu Lambda Chapter was a frequent attendee of General Conventions. He died in 1959.
Robert Harold Ogle entered the career secretarial field and had the unique privilege of serving as a professional staff member to the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. He was an African-American pioneer in his Capitol Hill position. He proposed the fraternity’s colors and was Alpha Chapter’s first secretary. Ogle joined Kelley in working out the first ritual and later became a charter member of Washington’s Mu Lambda Chapter. He died in 1936.
Vertner Woodson Tandy became the state of New York’s first registered black architect, with offices on Broadway in New York City. The designer of the fraternity pin holds the distinction of being the first African American to pass the military commissioning examination and was commissioned first lieutenant in the 15th Infantry of the New York State National Guard. He was Alpha Chapter’s first treasurer and took the initiative to incorporate the fraternity. Among the buildings designed by the highly talented architect is Saint Phillips Episcopal Church in New York City. He died in 1949, at age 64. 2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.69
NOTES
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.71
NOTES
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.73
NOTES
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.75
2016 WORLD POLICY COUNCIL
P.III
ADDRESS ALPHA
PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY
2313 ST. PAUL STREET BALTIMORE, MD 21218 PHONE
(410) 554-0040
WEB WWW.APA1906.NET