A recent news article published in The Guardian by Damian Carrington highlights a study published in Nature Climate Change on the future habitability of the Arabian Gulf. The climate study examined the influence of climate change from greenhouse gasses on the region. The Guardian article ends with an additional contribution from Guardian Middle East reporter Kareem Shaheen focusing on current living conditions of living in Dubai.
The scientific study is motivated by the need for additional resolution on global climate model projections. To accomplish this, the study focused on the Arabian Gulf with a model of a resolution step size of 25-km grid spacing. Using modeling techniques bench-marked for the region, the study effectively added 30 points of measurement for each one point used in global models for increased resolution. Using a measure reflecting the humidity and temperature of the region, wet-bulb temperature (TW), a direct relationship to a human body's core temperature and survival limits (35 C for 6 hours) were used to assess habitability of the region.
The study presents three cases of TW in the Gulf to illustrate their point; a historical TW, mitigated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (RCP4.5), and "business-as-usual" greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5). With the current "business-as-usual" model, high TW are obtained for cities on the Arabian Gulf that have southeast winds blowing hot humid air blowing into them including Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Doha. The study warns of temperature increases in the region would reach extremes hazardous to human health, particularly the to "the weakest-namely children and the elderly." The authors do stress the implications of the higher temperatures in other regions of the Middle East such as on the Red Sea coast and warn of the potential health concerns to the Muslim ritual of Hajj that includes annually ~ 2 million pilgrims praying outdoors from sunrise to sunset. The authors of the study emphasize that with mitigated release of greenhouse gases, a smaller increase in TW is obtained.
The Nature Climate Change article admits in their conclusion that the economic benefits of an oil producing nation provide benefits that allow for more human adaptive processes to combat the health consequences of heating (ie air conditioners). They do warn that under these conditions even the most "basic outdoor activities are likely to be severely impacted." The Nature Climate Change authors do highlight the greater risk for areas not benefiting from oil production, such as coastal Yemen. The authors compare the future climate of the region to the African land portion of the Red Sea, which due to harsh climate has no permanent human settlements.
Figure 1: Spatial distributions of extreme wet bulb temperature and extreme temperature.
a–f, Ensemble average of the 30-year maximum TWmax (a–c) and Tmax (d–f) temperatures for each GHG scenario: historical (a,d), RCP4.5 (b,e) and RCP8.5 (c,f). Averages for the domain excluding the buffer zone (DOM), land excluding the buffer zone (LND) and the Arabian Peninsula (AP) are indicated in each plot. TWmax and Tmax are the maximum daily values averaged over a 6-h window.
Climate
change is one of the most pressing issues for mankind in the 21st
century. This problem is primarily due to human use of fossil fuels which releases
compounds like CO2 and CH4. These gases absorb and emit
infrared radiation which warms the earth in what is called the greenhouse
effect. Since humans are releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases, the
amount and rate of warming is rapidly increasing. This will most likely lead to
massive consequences for mankind like increased sea level, extreme weather
events, and hotter summers.
An article published earlier this
year by the Guardian, “Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds”, focuses on the effects of global warming to precipitation
and heat wave patterns. The author drew his information from a study published
in Nature Climate Change. The Guardian article starts off by linking recent
increases in heat waves and heavy rain to climate change. It talks about the
0.85 Celsius increase in temperature from the start of the industrial age to
today, which has resulted in extreme weather events happening 5 times more than
before. The article also mentions the danger of higher increases in temperature,
which the world seems on track to follow because of the continued use of fossil
fuels. The rest of the piece focuses on the modeling of future extreme weather
events and its link to human causes.
The study in which the Guardian
article is based on goes into more detail regarding modeling future extreme
weather. It uses probability ratio (PR) and FAR which determines the changed
factor of extreme weather events occurring and the percent of these
attributable to humans. The study also uses a global model which shows
variability in climate and extreme weather events. The data shows that as
temperature increases the FAR and PR ratio increase nonlinearly for extreme
heat waves and heavy precipitation. The data also shows that overall
precipitation can decrease while extreme precipitation events increase in
certain circumstances. The last subject the study broaches is the uncertainty
of the models that they are using and the methods they used to decrease it like
looking at things globally.
Figure 3 from study which shows probability ratio (PR)
The article did a pretty good job in
communicating the major details from the study. For example, the author notes
that the attribution of extreme weather events to climate change is a
complicated issue. However, I thought that the author could have stated even
more clearly that you could not link one extreme weather event directly to only
human causes. The author could have also explained FAR to explain attribution
science into more detail. Other than that the article did a good job in noting
the variability of extreme weather events across the globe and mentions that
some places will be more vulnerable to these occurrences.
Overall, I thought the Guardian
article did a good job in representing the material from the study. I was
especially pleased of how the article did not go into the political sphere with
any comments.
A recently
published Washington Post article entitled “New studies deepen
concerns about a climate-change ‘wild card’” references two
published studies. In the Washington Post article the author reports that
future climate change will lead to disruptions in global ocean currents.
Specifically, the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
system is discussed. This circulation system is responsible for transporting
warm water northward, and cold, dense saltwater down into the deep ocean. The
water circulation pathway helps to keep temperatures moderate in Europe.
One of the
referenced studies, entitled “Response of Atlantic overturning to future
warming in a coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet model”, uses
computer modeling to study the effects of rapid thawing of Greenland’s ice
sheets. The study is published in Geophysical Research
Letters and explores the AMOC’s sensitivity to changes in ocean
temperature and freshwater perturbations. Previous studies have been conducted
to explore Greenland ice sheet (GIS) melting, however, this study incorporates
a new modeling technique that more accurately predicts the effects of
freshwater incorporation into the AMOC system. The new modeling technique
predicts more dramatic changes than previously expected from previous modeling
techniques. The dynamic ice sheet model predicts weakening of the AMOC, and describes
the intensification of the high-latitude halocline
as a result of the freshwater discharge into the North Atlantic by GIS melting.
Furthermore, the salinity decrease of the upper layer water inhibits North
Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) due to the fact that freshwater is less dense than
fresh water.
Figure 2 shows
changes in salinity in the North Atlantic as a result of the GIS melting modeling.
The dynamic modeling predicts a decrease in practical salinity by 2 units,
while previous modeling systems predicts a decrease in practical salinity by 1
unit. This figure highlights what previous modeling systems failed to take into
account.
The other referenced
study, entitled “gradual onset and recovery of the Younger
Dryas abrupt climate event in the tropics”, discusses the Younger
Dryas (YD), a rapid climate change event that occurred 12.5 thousand
years ago, also known as the Big Freeze. In this study published in Nature
Communications, they use modeling to study this major past geological event to
make predictions on future climate events. The current hypothesis for the cause
of the YD is that a rapid freshwater influx into the North Atlantic weakened
the AMOC and induced the abrupt climate change. In the paper, modeling using
new hydroclimate records from the tropics is combined with previous established
hydroclimate data to make future climate event predictions. Overall, much of
the data reported in this study is analysis of the past. I think this paper was
referenced to show an extreme example of global climate change (the YD), and
the potential extreme implications of a weakening AMOC.
In short, both
studies use modeling to predict weakening of the AMOC as a result of global
climate change, which leads to predictions for future weather patterns and
climate. They both use newer modeling systems to add to previously established
research. I think overall the popular media article overhyped the reported
research by using phrases such as “dramatic implications” and making references
to movies such as “Day After Tomorrow”. Furthermore, I think when they claim
that “possible effects [range] from plunging temperatures in the northern
latitudes to centuries-long droughts in Southeast Asia” is a severe over-exaggeration
of the reported research. The article also claims that global climate change
may lead to the “shut down” of the AMOC, while the scientific articles report a
weakening of the AMOC. However, when the scientific papers are described in the
Washington Post article, I think the research was well summarized (though very
briefly) and it is clearly mentioned that computer modeling was involved. Quotes
from the authors of the peer-reviewed papers were included in the Washington
Post article, which allowed for a more dramatic spin on the reported
research.
Despite the debate surrounding the existence of climate
change, it is most definitely happening. One of the most pronounced effects of
climate change has been sea level rise due to the melting of masses of ice
around the world. The Antarctic Ice Sheet stores enough water to rise the
global sea level by 58 meters and some scientists, as in the study that this
news article is based on, believe that by burning the remainder of the Earth’s
fossil fuels, the ice sheet will be eliminated and the sea level will make this
58 meter rise.
The New York Times
published a news article based on a paper published in Science Advances by scientists from Germany, the UK and California.
The Times article summarizes the key
points from the research article in that is goes into detail about how the sea
level rise would occur and what areas would be greatly affected. The author of
the Times article even goes as far as
collecting statements from some of the researcher on the paper and including the
personal quotes in the article. The article then takes a political detour,
discussing the lack of effective political action taken in the past 30 years
and the possible actions of President Obama and his opposition within the
Republican Party. The article does mention that this study was based on a model
but does not go into enough detail about the study’s actual methods to point
out that this is only calculated data. The article ends with some text on the
history of seal level rise awareness and the great negative impacts we make by
burning fossil fuels leading to, ultimately, the end of the world as we know
it. It is interesting that the author closes the article with a statement from
a researcher not involved in the study that brings up the ethics of ignoring a
problem that will not affect us in our lifetimes. “What right do we have to do
things that, even if they don’t affect us, are going to be someone else’s
problem a thousand years from now?”
The research article in Science
Advances outlines the models and simulations that were performed to
determine the rise of global sea level as the ice sheets, specifically the
Antarctic Ice Sheet, as more fossil fuels are burned raising oceanic and/or
global temperatures. The article states that ice loss is driven by two
self-reinforcing types of feedback: the marine ice-sheet instability, which occurs when
ocean warming leads to subsequent sub-shelf melting, and the surface elevation
feedback, which occurs when a critical temperature is reached, the lower
elevation of the ice and increases surface mass loss. The simulations seem to
be centered on the levels of CO2 emitted and correlate this to the
melting. There is little to no discussion on the actual chemical reactions that
must take place to cause an increase in temperature and also no mention of the
ozone hole which would also be a key factor to this loss of ice. The research
article makes no mention of further work or investigation and there no mention
of any possible solutions to the impending sea level rise.
The Times article
seems to utilize the research article as more of an example and spends more
time on sensationalizing the topic and including causal remarks from the
researchers about their surprise at the results of the simulation. The Science Advances article includes only a
reference as to how they determined the total amount of fossil fuels left to
burn and does not state that they take into account any information regarding
the actual amounts remaining in mining areas or possible storages yet untapped.
The comments included from the researchers are of little scientific merit and
only impress the point that the researchers were surprised and in disbelief as
to how serious the situation is. The lack of explanation or discussion of the
reliability of the simulation models is also of concern and leaves room for
error or misinterpretation.
Overall, the Times
article brings an important topic to the attention of the public with evidence
from a scientific research article which is a positive result. However, the
article ignores most of the specific data presented in the paper and instead
brings in the political opinions of the author, drastic comments about the
future of human existence and unreferenced statements about ice loss and sea
level rise.
