I’ve been guilty in my journalism of playing the “thermohaline card” – using the example of a thermohaline circulation shutdown as an example of the sort of abrupt climate change that could happen unexpectedly as a result of anthropogenic climate change. I never pushed it hard, but I thought it relevant. But a good story from Richard Kerr in the Oct. 21 Science has me convinced I shouldn’t do it again. It’s not that abrupt climate change isn’t an important issue, a legitimate driver behind a “precautionary principle” attitude toward greenhouse gas reduction. But a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, with the resulting scary European deep freeze scenario, seems less credible than I used to believe:

A precipitous shift in climate could happen again, say researchers, 25 of whom gathered here last summer to discuss abrupt climate change.* But the prime menace no longer lies in the North Atlantic. Instead, a growing contingent of scientists now sees the North Atlantic as no more of a threat than accelerating sea level rise, megadroughts, and monsoon failures. “A few years ago, people thought the [Atlantic circulation] could collapse almost like The Day After Tomorrow,” said paleoclimatologist Julia Hargreaves of the Frontier Research Center for Global Change in Yokohama, Japan. “But a very rapid collapse now seems fairly unlikely under global warming.”

* The “here” he mentions above is the “Abrupt Climate Change: Mechanisms, Early Warning Signs, Impacts, and Economic Analyses,” meeeting in July Aspen under the auspices of the Aspen Global Change Institute.

Dennis Kucinich’s wacky “resolution of inquiry” into What the President Knew About Global Warming and When He Knew It (see Prometheus for background) has been defeated. Comments from House Science Committee chair Sherwood Boehlert (he’s an R), as reported in the committee press release:

I want to make clear at the outset that any debate or vote on this measure should not be seen as any kind of barometer of what the House thinks, or is willing to do about, global climate change. Personally, I support mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, and I think there is growing concern about climate change around the country.

But I don’t think that this resolution would advance the debate on climate change one iota. Rather, this resolution is a broadly drafted, partisan political ploy that tries to create a phony issue about documents. I don’t see how that helps anyone.

It’s difficult even to determine how anyone would comply with the resolution. What documents are being sought? Every Administration document related to climate change and U.S. coasts? How many truckloads of materials would that be?

Moreover, what would we do with this information if we got it? What would we find? What new insight would we arrive at concerning climate change or climate policy? The resolution reminds me about the old line about dogs chasing cars: What would they do if they caught one? What would anyone do if this resolution succeeded?

David Appell’s not around to do this, so I guess it’s my job to point out that October 2005 was the second-warmest globally in history. The three warmest Octobers in history have come in the last three years. It’s not that I think that a single global number is useless. I agree with Roger Pielke Sr. that it misses a lot of what’s important, but that does not mean it’s unimportant, especially as one tool in explaining to the public the change that’s underway.

For those of you living in Albuquerque, October temperatures were just a hair above average overall, but the devil is in the details. Daytime highs were cooler than average, while overnight lows were the fifth warmest in history, continuing a trend of remarkably warm overnight temperatures. I haven’t run the numbers yet (Danger! Danger! Journalist doing math!), but I’ll be surprised if 2005 doesn’t end up the warmest, in terms of overnight temps, in the city’s history. Our diurnal temperature range is shrinking. (Albuquerque 2005 numbers from the National Weather Service, long-term data from the Western Regional Climate Center.)

Given the recent discussions here and elsewhere about the suitability (or lack thereof) of globally averaged surface temperature as a measure of anthropogenic climate change, I note a paper by Swiss climate researcher Rolf Philipona and colleagues that found a positive water vapor feedback responsible for excess warming in Europe:
Continue reading ‘Water Vapor Feedbacks in Europe’ »

Roger Pielke Jr. links to an absolutely wacky press release from Dennis Kucinich documenting his request for

all documents (including minutes and memos) in his possession relating to the effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Weather Service, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Assessment Synthesis Team, and the US Geological Survey.

Says Kucinich:

“The American public deserve to know what the President knew about the effects climate change would have, and will continue to have, on our coasts.”

One imagines a hard working House staffer in the bowels of the capitol late one Saturday night, grinding through boxes of federal documents when he stumbles upon the smoking gun. “The President must have known!” Is this any way to have a national discussion about science policy?