Fall 2017
Global warming
debates - a guided reading course
Instructor:
Eli Galanti
Monday, 9:15-11:00 - FGS, Rm 4 TA:
Guy Dagan
Syllabus
Week
01 |
(Oct
31) |
Eli & Eli |
|
|
|
Week 02 |
(Nov
07) |
Keren & Eshkol |
|
|
|
Week 03 |
(Nov
14) |
Jonathan & Rafael |
|
|
|
Week 04 |
(Nov
21) |
Eran |
|
|
|
Week 05 |
(Nov
28) |
Madi
& Yakir |
|
|
|
Week 06 |
(Dec
05) |
Huanhuan |
|
|
|
Week 07 |
(Dec
12) |
Eli T. |
|
|
|
Week 08 |
(Dec
19) |
Ron |
|
|
|
Week 09 |
(Dec
26) |
Madi
& Yakir |
|
|
|
Week 10 |
(Jan
02) |
Lizzy & Ben |
|
|
|
Week 11 |
(Jan
09) |
Eli G. |
|
|
|
Week 12 |
(Jan
16) |
Jonathan & Rafael |
|
|
|
Week 13 |
(Jan
23) |
Lizzy & Ben |
|
|
|
Week 14 |
(Jan
30) |
Keren & Eshkol |
|
Geo-engineering
and final discussion |
|
Overview & goals
Want
to be an informed climate skeptic? Come learn from other people’s mistakes…
This reading course seeks to provide an overview of the science of global
change thorough a survey of current scientific debates. Topics (see below) are
specifically chosen for their relevance, interest, and open-ended nature. No
correct answer is likely to emerge, but we hope that you will become
scientifically better informed regarding relevant climate topics. An initial
list of topics is provided below, but this can be revised according to current
events and student interests.
Administrative
Prerequisites: This is a basic introductory breadth course and should
be accessible to all Weizmann graduate students.
Requirements: Apart from reading all assigned papers, students will
be asked to prepare presentations on one or two of the topics to be covered
during the course and based on the appropriate papers posted on the course web
page, and lead a discussion during class. In addition, each student not part of
the presenting group should turns in a half page position paper on each week
subject. Finally, class attendance is mandatory.
Position papers: If not part of
the group making a full presentation in a given week, students are asked to bring
a one-page position statement (12pt single space) to class based upon the
assigned reading where the first part outlines the overall issue and the second
provides an initial judgment on the topic.
Presentations:
Please
organize in groups of 2-3 for this purpose and choose subjects from the topics (see below) you would like to
work on (keep in mind, it’s a first come first served base). Depends on the
number of students, each group will work on one or two topics.
Each topic will require two presentations by the students leading the corresponding discussion. The first presentation is ~5 slides, 10 minutes long, and is given the week before the subject is discussed in class. The purpose of this brief presentation is to motivate the subject, and especially help the other students understand the more difficult aspects of the reading material. The second presentation is ~30 slides and is to be used during the discussion. Please provide some background for the other students, but then get to the actual paper within 5 to 6 slides. Please show the figures and equations from the paper, explain them, and provide guiding questions. In particular, make an effort to excite a discussion about the reading material. That is, the purpose of this presentation is to guide discussion, as opposed to supporting a lecture. Note that we may not cover all 30 slides if the discussion uses all the class time, and that this would be a good indication of a successful presentation. Make sure to switch presenting between group members every slide, rather than dividing the presentation into larger blocks.
Grading:
Based on presentations (40%), position
papers (40%), and participation (20%).
A list of topics
Introduction
ü Read [1] the
article "Don't believe
the hype". Skim through [2] the "IPCC
summary for policy makers" and consider watching the
series of short YouTube
movies.
ü In class we will
also discuss the course requirements and give guidelines
for each of the assignments.
Radiative forcing
ü This time we will
be reading a few small bits from several papers and blogs, please follow instructions
1-5 carefully: [1] Start by looking at the global-average temperature record
and [2] the flux of cosmic ray (page 8, Fig. 6) and note the remarkable
similarity of the global temperature record and this cosmic ray record. Both
reach a max around 1950, a minimum in the 1970s, and then increase. A strong
case that solar activity is the source of global warming? Then read [3] the Svensmark
paper that proposes a physical mechanism that links the solar activity and the
global temperature. Continue by reading [4] for a discussion of systematic
errors in solar activity data, and finally see [5] a critical discussion of the
physical mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud condensation nuclei. Readings.
ü Read [1,2] the two
RealClimate blog entries. Also consider reading [3]
the chapter on greenhouse gasses. Your summary should be on [1] and [2]. Readings.
Atmosphere
ü Start with [1] the
NYTimes article on the Russian heat wave. Then read
[2] Dole et al (2011) suggesting that this has nothing to do with global
warming. Then [3] Rahmstorf and Coumou
(2011) claiming that this heat wave would have been very unlikely without
global warming. Finally, read [4] Otto et al (2012) which try to reconcile the
two views. Readings.
9. More or stronger
hurricanes due to global warming: 2005 was a destructive hurricane year and global
warming was blamed. The following seasons were not as dramatic, but then 2017
broke all records. What’s going on?
ü Read [1] Emanuel
(2005) who came with a simple but brilliant measure for the hurricane
destructiveness potential, showing that it has increased dramatically during
the past few decades with a strong correlation with the local SST. Then read
[2] Swanson (2008), sections 1-2, who shows that hurricanes can also be
correlated with non-local SST. Finally, read [3] Vecchi
et al. (2008) who demonstrate how the assumptions made by [1] and [2] have
fundamental implications for the expected response of hurricanes to global
warming. To get an up to date notion on what is expected to happen read [4] box
1 in Knutson (2010). Readings.
ü Read [1] the
perspective piece by Wallace et al. (2014) and make a note of the arguments
that they raise against the notion of Arctic sea ice influencing mid-latitude
weather. Then read [2] Francis and Vavrus (2012) and
[3] the counter-argument by Barnes (2013). Finally, read [4] the NYT article
which includes some back and forth between the various authors. Optional:
folder with articles from the popular press. Readings.
Oceans
11. Sea level rise: How fast would the
see level rise under global warming?
ü Read [1] the IPCC
prediction of up to 1m sea level rise till the end of the century (Executive
summary and section 13.8). Then [2] the controversial Hansen et al (2015) paper
claiming that the sea level will rise much more than predicted by the IPCC.
Finally, read [3,4] some of the reaction to this paper. Readings.
12. Sea level of the past: From where did rapid rise in sea level during
the last de-glaciation originate?
ü
Read [1] a
very short introduction on uncertainty in future sea level and an event known
as Meltwater Pulse 1A. Then read [2] Clark et al.
(2002) on “fingerprinting” the source of Meltwater
Pulse 1A to Antarctica, and then [3] Liu et al. (2015) who claim such a
conclusion cannot be made. If interested, skim the New Yorker piece on how sea
level rise is affecting Southern Florida. Recent references that build on Clark
et al. (2002) are in the ‘more’ directory, along with the full IPCC chapter on
sea level. Readings.
13. Ocean acidification: It’s an undisputed
consequence of rising CO2, but how would the calcifying marine
species respond to the more acid water is not clear.
ü Read [1] the RealClimate entry which sums up the chemistry nicely*. Then
[2] Lohbeck et al (2012) which suggests that
organisms can evolve to adjust. Readings.
*For a more detailed review consider reading Doney et al. (2009).
14. Ocean circulation
failure: Could ocean circulation
change rapidly due to global warming?
ü Read [1] Bryden et al. (2005) that suggested that the THC has
already collapsed. Continue with [2] a more recent paper showing how variable
the ocean overturning circulation is. Then read [3] an (unpublished)
explanation of the ocean circulation ”collapse” in terms of the overturning
circulation seasonal cycle. Readings.
15. The Hiatus: Has global warming
stopped during 2000-2013?
ü Read [1] the blog
entry by Judith Curry explaining the IPCC position and arguing it’s confused at
best. Continue with [2] the one page Held (2013) that summarizes the next
paper, and then read [3] Kosaka and Xie (2013) that suggest an explanation for the
Hiatus. Readings.
16. Methane clathrates Could significant amounts of Methane clathrates/ hydrates on the ocean floor be destabilized and
released to the atmosphere due to global warming, causing a catastrophic
positive feedback? See wikipedia and then the two
sides of the debate. readings.
17. Permafrost thawing and emissions: another positive feedback? readings.
Cryosphere
ü First watch what
glacier calving looks like here.
Then read [1] Pollard et al. (2015) that make the case for fast collapse, and
[2] Bell et al. (2017) that claim the opposite. If you want more background, look
at the review article by Alley et al. in the More folder, or you can watch
Alley lecture on this topic here.
Readings.
ü Read [1] Bloch et
al. (2012) about the Karakoram and Himalayan glaciers and [2] the one-page
comment by Cogley (2010) on the source of misinformation in the IPCC. Optional:
see here for
more on the IPCC process and how it failed in this particular case. Readings.
Paleoclimate
ü Read: [1] RealClimate summary of the hockey stick controversy, then
[2] Mann et al. ”Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the
past six centuries”. Read up to page 784, not including the section
”Attribution of climate forcings”. Finally, read [3]
McIntyre and McKitrick, ”Hockey sticks, principal
components, and spurious significance”. Readings.
* One remarkable part of this specific debate is
the involvement of the US congress. Please read under the directory Mann_vs_US_congress/: [4] Congressman Barton’s letter to
Mann and Mann’s response. [Optional: if you’d like to learn more about the
popular press response to this debate, look under popular-press/, especially at
the Guardian article.
ü Read [1] the Scientific American article by
Ruddiman (2005.). Then [2] the criticism by Broecker and Stocker (2006), and
[3] the reply by Ruddiman 2006. Readings.
Biosphere
ü Read [1] (sections 1,4, 7,9)
and Cox et al. who analyze of results from a comprehensive global circulation
model (GCM) that includes dynamic vegetation effects, in an effort to simulate
the response of the biosphere to climate change. Then [2] (marked sections) Malhi et al. who takes a different approach by focusing on
the hydrological characteristics that contributes to the existing biome
distribution. Finally, read [3] Levine et al. (2016) who used a more comprehensive
approach. We will be engaging with two questions: 1) What is the expected
response of the Amazon to climate change? 2) What will be the feedback (if any)
of changes in terrestrial vegetation on the global carbon cycle (and hence, the
climate)? readings.
Broader implications
But what to do?
ü Read [0] the
Wikipedia page on Solar radiation management, then [1] Keith (2018) who is supporting
the idea, and [3] Pierrehumbert (2017) who warns against humankind ‘hacking the
planet’. Readings.