Climate science in a nutshell – Part 1

James Hansen’s Storms of my Grandchildren has been affectionately described as having “a rambling quality that’s sometimes evident in Hansen’s speeches”. However, the same reviewer also noted that “the book does get to a focused and well-supported conclusion: that business as usual will bring climate catastrophe, and our time to act is running short”. Based on over 20 years of professional hydrogeological work experience, I believe that probabilistic computer models are useful, as does James Hansen. Undoubtedly, he would be very quick to point out, as does Clive Hamilton, that the only uncertainty in model predictions arises out of uncertainty in emissions forecasts; and not out of any uncertainty regarding climate sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Despite all this, the most remarkable and challenging thing about Hansen’s book is its focus on what we can learn from studying changes to the Earth’s climate over geological timescales (i.e. palaeoclimatology). It is therefore clear that Hansen sees this, rather than climate modelling, as the best available evidence of the need for urgent recognition of – and response to – the fact that human activity is endangering all life on Earth. In pages 36 to 51 of Storms of my Grandchildren, Hansen provides an introduction to what we can learn from palaeoclimatology. However, one basic fact is not clearly stated, which is a shame. This fact, however, is clearly stated in the first episode of David Attenborough’s new BBC series, Frozen Planet: Most people are probably familiar with the fact that warm air holds more moisture than cold air, but how many are aware that water at 30 Celsius can only hold half as much dissolved CO2 as it can at 10 Celsius? Furthermore, how many could say why this is so fundamentally important to climate science? In this post and those that follow it this week, I intend to unpack all this sort of stuff; and demonstrate why the time is well overdue for climate sceptics to stop denying that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is happening, significant and bad; and why it is therefore a problem that we simply must try and mitigate. However, for now, let us just focus on this issue of CO2 solubility in water, which is a key to understanding the palaeoclimatic record (e.g. as revealed from studying ice core data from holes drilled through the Antarctic ice cap). Although Antarctica was first glaciated (i.e. covered in ice) 35 million years ago, the current ice cap (over 4 kilometres thick in places) only provides a record of several 100 thousand years but, believe me, this is enough for us to understand how planet Earth works. From this data, we know that there have been 8 ice ages in the last 750,000 years, and we know that they were all caused by regular wobbles in the angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation and less-regular variations in the non-circularity (i.e. eccentricity) of its orbit. We also know that changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, which match those in the Earth’s temperature exactly, happened several hundred years later in each and every case. This is because of the way in which the Earth regulates its temperature (ensuring an energy balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infra-red radiation) using the solubility of CO2 in water: Put very simply, when the oceans cool down (during the onset of an ice age), they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and, because it has been removed from the atmosphere, more heat is lost to space. Thus the Earth stays cold until the natural forcing induces warming (e.g. axis of rotation becomes less vertical again). Then, as the oceans warm up they release CO2 into the atmosphere, trapping more heat in, keeping the planet warm. Thus, both glacial and interglacial periods represent times of energy balance; whereas periods of transition represent times of energy imbalance that are eliminated by atmospheric CO2 changes. The next step in understanding palaeoclimatic changes is to differentiate between forcings (that bring about change) and feedbacks (that amplify or accelerate any change). It is the existence of amplifying feedback mechanisms that make artificial changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration so dangerous. However, quite how dangerous, we can only discover by looking in detail at changes that have occurred over the last 400,000 years. This, then, is what I will do tomorrow.


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Anthropocene, Climate Science, Environment, James Hansen, Storms of my Grandchildren and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Climate science in a nutshell – Part 1

  1. weatherdem says:

    I don’t disagree that we must engage in mitigation. There have been some small efforts toward that goal and I think those efforts must continue and expand into new areas. I think, for instance, that municipalities and local governments have been more effective at instituting changes than have regional or national governments (i.e. state-based energy portfolios). I no longer have faith that national governments are the appropriate level of engagement in the next decade or so, especially the U.S.’s messy democracy where too often minority interests rule. I think the best thing to do is concentrate on smaller scale efforts where people can identify with communities of interest to accomplish goals. I have personally reached a point where I don’t see the logic in continuing to address skeptics’ nonsensical claims in the same way they’ve been addressed for decades. They have a different worldview and will not respond to entreaties based on our worldview. I advocate that those who understand the climate science (people like you and I) should concentrate our efforts on continuing to educate those with similar worldviews about the scale of the problem and its processes and build larger movements that work for mitigation action. I think one of the best ways to foster those movements is to present and discuss realistic solutions – people can’t be left feeling hopeless or despair. That’s the direction I want to head toward. Keep up the good work!


    • Rick_Altman says:

      I agree with you about the futility of “debate” with “sceptics” (e.g. Peter Jacques’ analysis as quoted in my Policy inaction is the goal of those that dispute global warming). Unfortunately, this is just seen as a sign of weakness by those that do not want to engage in what they call “armchair psychology” because they think their grasp of science is better than ours (e.g. this recent exchange on Climate Denial Crock of the Week). Therefore, even though it remains my fervent hope that I can get a job working in policy and/or advocacy for a national NGO (or similar), reading Hansens’ book has left my very disillusioned (like you) about the interference in politics by special interests groups and the state of self-delusion amongst our respective politicians – who still appear wedded to the idea that, simply because they are there, “humanity has a god-given right to burn all fossil fuels…” In short, even now, they just still don’t “get it!


  2. Pingback: Climate science in a nut fragment | Anthropocene Reality

  3. Pingback: Climate science in a nut fragment | Anthropocene Reality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s