The Important Warming Isn't Global

Yes, the world is overheating. Yes, that tends to cause climate change in ways that go beyond hotter afternoons--say, the widening of the tropics, the desertification of the Mediterranean, and more extreme weather.

One would think (irony alert) that the best way to summarize the climate threat is to average the near-surface temperature 1) over day and night, 2) over all four seasons, and 3) over both ocean surface and land surface.

There is fifty years of tradition in producing the annual number this very way. This globally averaged annual surface temperature, once we subtract what it was back in the good old days, is known as "global warming."

"Global" warming is global only in the sense of including both ocean surface and land surface, not in the sense of incorporating everything. It leaves out the air blanket above your head and the ocean depths, both major places where the excess heat has been stashed. Global is just what you see on a globe—and thus a somewhat misleading use of the term.

Since there is twice as much ocean surface as there is land, the land warming only counts half as much as the ocean surface warming when calculating "global" warming. Most of us live on land and so this global average number underestimates what we experience.

We now have a half-century of experience summarizing the growing climate problem via this unnatural number. Logical as it seemed fifty years ago when introduced to track the planet's heat budget (and it is still very useful for that), it has turned out to only roughly track climate changes.

Furthermore, this unfortunate choice of terminology has generated endless confusion among nonscientists, eagerly exploited by promoters of "unfettered business as usual" who seek to delay climate action by prolonging our confusion.

Then there is that word "warming," another somewhat misleading term. It has sounded cozy to some people. "Warming" just doesn't imply an excess in the way that "overheating" does.

Some have wondered, not unreasonably, how an unusually cold winter could be consistent with a general warming. Or how there could be a pause in "global warming" while the CO2 concentration keeps rising. The climate scientists have perfectly good answers to these concerns, but they tend not to be heard—in about the same way as corrections to yesterday's news articles tend not to be read.

It has become increasingly apparent over the last fifteen years that we can have a lot of climate change, and a lot of CO2 increase, without much trend in that "global warming" number. We had a similar period from 1950 (when Popular Mechanics had a nice article on global warming) until 1977. It didn't seem to be globally warming at all, despite a lot of additional CO2 accumulation from the soaring post-war emissions.

The climate system has a lot of sectors; sometimes, cooling influences can temporarily counter the extra heating of greenhouse gases. More clouds or greater ocean downwelling could do it.

Just as a map is not the terrain, an index is often not where the action is. An analogy: the Dow-Jones Industrial Average, "The DJI," tends to underestimate what is happening in tech stocks. "The market" may go nowhere while some market sectors are thriving. 

Is something like that happening to our index of what alters climate? However useful the global average overheating may be for working out the heat budget and finding hidden sinks, is there a better index for drivers of climate change than just averaging over oceans and continents?

It is certainly worth looking for one. The two major topics at all three climate science conferences that I attended in a ten-day period in September were the Arctic Amplification and, separately, the so-called "hiatus" in global warming of the last ten years. During the third meeting, one possibility occurred to me: Don't add. Subtract.

Subtracting Arctic temperature from continental land temperature would have helped understand Arctic Amplification, prolonged heat waves, and those frigid "Arctic outbreaks."

Subtracting ocean temperature from land temperature would have been a better idea than adding them. That's important because the extra heating warms the land twice as fast as it does the ocean surface. That has consequences.

So let's talk about movers of climate change rather than the usual statistical abstractions. As is well known from monsoons, hot land heats the air just above the surface, causing it to rise, which sucks in cooler moist air from offshore.

It's just like the draw of the fireplace. This "sea breeze" peaks in the late afternoon and helps sailors get home in time for supper. Suppose climate change is strengthening the sea breeze?

So rather than adding together two parts ocean to one part land, subtract ocean from land. Compare that to what it was in the good old days. Call it enhanced coastal contrast if you like.

Think of it as a rough index of what should strengthen the moist onshore winds. That's already an improvement over that weighted sum of land and ocean temperatures which, to nonscientists, mostly suggests warmer afternoons and the need for more air conditioning.

[It's not as if atmospheric scientists don't already create climate indices based on regional differences. A pre-overheating classic is the North Atlantic Oscillation ("NAO"), which subtracts the air pressure at Iceland in the north from the higher pressure at the Azores in the south. When the difference is big (NAO+), the storm tracks often take a left turn into Europe. When the pressure difference becomes less pronounced (NAO-), the Atlantic storm tracks deliver the rain to the Mediterranean rather than Europe. Once shifted, it tends to stay that way for a decade or more, enabling predictions about winter storm tracks.]

Subtraction's focus on stronger onshore winds also helps us think in terms of rainfall, or its lack. But a stronger wind need not follow the customary path and may well deliver its moisture somewhere else. Result? Some places will get unexpected rain, others will lack enough.

Flood here, drought there, and who knows when? This generality tells us quite a lot about what’s ahead. Even minor rearrangements in wind can produce trouble. Change the month when the rains arrive and fields that supported two crops each year may only support one, cutting food yield in half. Note that no change in the annual rainfall is required for trouble—nor does it take extreme weather, as when prolonged heat waves bake all of the water out of the topsoil and the plants collapse.

Were a new pattern of moisture delivery to stick around for decades, we might slowly adapt. But no. That’s because the watery laggard in the global warming race just keeps falling further behind the continents with the years, thanks to all of that evaporative cooling of the ocean surface, its greater heat capacity, and the way surface waters are flushed into the depths in a few places. And so the continent's winds keep changing around unpredictably. That's a recipe for even more climate chaos.


As long as “Hot-Spot Temperature” keeps increasing its lead over “Sea Surface Temperature” in this horse race to Hell, the strengthening temperature contrast across coastlines can strengthen the moisture-laden winds coming off the ocean and thus change where the rain falls (or doesn't).

Welcome to climate instability, where all bets are off when recent history doesn't help you decide what to plant where.

William H. Calvin is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle and the author of Global Fever: How to Treat Climate Change (University of Chicago Press, 2008). The latest version of the CO2 cleanup was a finalist in MIT's 2013 geoengineering climate contest.

 October 2014 WCalvin@UW.edu faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin

Climate: Is This the Best We Can Do?

Suppose that you went to the dentist with a toothache. But instead of filling the cavity, the dentist merely told you to brush your teeth more often.

Without a repair, a tooth not only hurts: it won’t survive long enough to benefit from better brushing. Once you’ve got a problem, what you need is a quick fix, then a redoubling of preventive measures.

Our current approach to global warming is also all prevention and no fix. We persist in framing the climate problem in the same way as we did before 1976, which is when major climate shifts began.

Prevention is no longer the appropriate way to look at this problem, not when we’ve already accumulated a 43 percent excess of carbon dioxide in the air. The overheating from it has been exaggerating the usual causes of extreme weather episodes.

But we’re doing something about it, right? Yet reducing emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks does not reduce the carbon dioxide accumulation, not any more than a drop in the interest rate will reduce the balance of your savings account. It’s like confusing the annual budget deficit with the accumulated national debt. And it's the carbon dioxide accumulation that causes overheating.

In the continental U.S., it now looks as if we are going to overheat 2°C (3.6°F) by 2028 . Remember that year. It’s when today’s toddlers finish high school and contemplate their future—or lack thereof.

That 2°C (3.6°F) frontier is when we have about twice as much overheating as today. There will be many more extreme weather events than in recent years.

What to do? Miraculously converting to low emissions tomorrow, worldwide, would only delay the U.S. reaching that frontier by nine years, to 2037. At our current level of effort, we’ll be lucky to get an extra nine weeks.

There is a hazard to long-term thinking. To reap long-term benefits, you first have to survive the short-term risks–and they often require a different approach than prevention does.

Yet all we hear about climate action, even from the good guys, will merely slow down the worsening of climate. These “climate solutions” will neither stop climate change nor reverse the trends. But almost no one ever mentions that.

Is this the best we can do?

The climate problem has outgrown its original frame, with its conveniently distant dates and a patchwork quilt of climate actions promoted as "every little bit counts." Emissions reduction, though still essential for the long term, is now insufficient for decently surviving the near term. It’s too little, too late.

Emissions reduction is also insufficiently sure-fire, given what’s at stake. We now have an unmanageable situation promising major systems shutdowns, rather like terminal kidney failure used to proceed. With dialysis to clean up the blood, however, it was made into a manageable disease, enabling a near-normal life.

We must now make our climate problem into a manageable disease using a strategy analogous to dialysis. Otherwise, there is an unacceptable risk of civilization collapsing. In the past, such disorganization usually caused a human population crash.

---

William H. Calvin is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle and the author of Global Fever: How to Treat Climate Change (University of Chicago Press, 2008).

September 2014    WCalvin@UW.edu      faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin

This New Era of Climate Instability

In our race to overheat the planet, hot spots have developed. Unless you reside on a yacht, you probably live atop one.

A fireplace is merely a mini hot spot. As warm air rises, cooler air comes rushing in to replace it (the “draw”). With hotter spots, you get a stronger breeze. 

The planet’s new hot spots are, naturally enough, busy rearranging when the winds blow and where the rain falls. Climate change, in other words. (Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.)

Since 1977, the continents have been warming twice as fast as the ocean surface. 

Global mean temperature rise (AKA global warming) is just the weighted sum of land and sea surface temperature averages; there is twice as much ocean surface as land. So the difference between land and sea continued to increase. And thus the temperature contrast across coastlines.

That can strengthen the moisture-laden winds coming off the ocean. But a stronger wind need not follow the customary path and may well deliver its moisture somewhere else.

Result? Some places will get unexpected rain, others will lack enough. Flood here, drought there, and who knows when?

This generality tells us quite a lot about what’s ahead. Even minor rearrangements in wind can produce trouble. Change the month when the rains arrive and fields that supported two crops each year may only support one, cutting food yield in half.

Note that no change in the annual rainfall is required for trouble—nor does it take extreme weather, as when prolonged heat waves suck all of the water out of the topsoil so that plants collapse.

Were a new pattern of moisture delivery to stick around for decades, we might slowly adapt. But no. That’s because the laggard in the global warming race just keeps falling further behind with the years, thanks to all of that evaporative cooling of the ocean surface and its greater heat capacity.

As long as “Hot-Spot Temperature” keeps increasing its lead over “Sea Surface Temperature” in this horse race to Hell, the strengthening temperature contrast over coastlines will keep producing newer and newer patterns of moisture delivery. Tracking a staggering target is far more difficult than slow adaptation to a new arrangement.

Welcome to climate instability, where all bets are off because history doesn’t help anymore.

There will be many more bad years for regional agriculture. And that increases the chance of a global bad year, as when Russia and the U.S. both got hit in 2010.

You would think that governments would return to stockpiling grain, and on a far grander scale than the pharaoh’s seven-year plan. Consider what can happen to governments relying on just-in-time supply lines.

The record heat of summer 2010 led to food shortages the following winter—and the world turned out to be surprisingly vulnerable, with lethal food riots in many countries. By the spring of 2011, a number of improvident governments started falling.

Projecting ahead, enough repetition of extreme weather—hurricanes and windstorms, deluge and drought, heat wave and Arctic outbreak—can seriously disorganize our civilization. They can lead to instant slums, a failing economy, climate refugees, resource wars, and a great difficulty in getting anything done—even crucial climate repairs.

Before collapse threatens in the emergency room, physicians institute a number of measures to “stabilize the patient.” You have to start them early to avoid the slippery slope to shock. For climate, we now need that crisis-manager way of thinking, but there is not much of it to be seen in those voluminous climate reports.

Prevention measures such as emissions reduction no longer suffice, however important they remain for the long run. To get there, however, we now need climate repairs, such as cleaning up the 43% excess of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the air, in order to back us out of the danger zone.

The standard “take” on climate’s future by most well-informed people currently rests on predicted climate at mid-century, a gradual approach to it, and preventing worse through reduced emissions. That won’t do anymore.

In this new era of climate instability, don’t make the mistake of thinking things will change gradually. Or predictably. Or that prevention is still the obvious answer. Think repair and restoration.

---

William H. Calvin is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle and the author of Global Fever: How to Treat Climate Change  (University of Chicago Press, 2008). The latest version of the CO2 cleanup was a finalist in MIT's 2013 climate contest.

September 2014    WCalvin@UW.edu      faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin

The Climate Disconnect

The standard “take” on climate change sounds like this:

• Fossil fuel emissions cause the gradual accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the air.
• This buildup is gradually overheating the planet.
• That global warming, in turn, is gradually changing other aspects of our climate.
• We can expect a nasty 2°C overheating by mid-century. But we can gradually adapt.
• Reducing emissions will gradually fix the resulting climate problems, someday. 

It's not all wrong. How many fallacies did you spot?

1. Even with a gradual buildup of heat-trapping gases, each “gradually” thereafter is just wishful thinking. Gradual loading can provoke sudden shifts, as in that idiom about the straw that broke the camel’s back.
2. Climate scientists never said that reducing emissions would fix or even reduce the climate impacts. They said that reducing emissions would slow the rate at which things get worse—a little. A frequently-heard euphemism is “limit impacts” but there is no limit. 

The climate scientists know that climate can shift abruptly, but gradual is the only aspect of the future that they can calculate precisely enough to meet their exacting standards for prognostication.

Since the gradual story is bad enough, they have been leading with this least-uncertain aspect of the climate forecast when warning policymakers. Alas, gradual-only gives a low-ball estimate of the trouble ahead.

Facts that don’t fit a familiar framework tend to get lost in the retelling, especially when you are trying to make them into a good story that will be remembered. For forty years, the climate problem has been framed for us as a preventable disease, with a prescription that parallels “Limit sugar drinks to avoid tooth rot.”

Getting at the root cause always sounds like a good idea, and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the root cause of our climate problems. Reducing the annual additions is indeed a good idea (it’s just not sufficient). Had anyone taken the climate scientists’ advice forty years ago, this strategy might have headed off much of the overheating.

The Disconnect

But now there is a disconnect between the problem and its recommended treatment. Even if we were wildly successful in reducing emissions tomorrow, and doing it worldwide, it would make little difference by mid-century in the overheating.

That’s because emissions reduction does not reduce the accumulated excess of carbon dioxide. Currently, only nature’s removal processes do that, and they are quite slow and fraught with side effects such as ocean acidification. Were emissions cut to zero tomorrow, it would take a thousand years to remove three out of four of the excess CO2 molecules.

It’s the current 43 percent excess of CO2 that counts for overheating and climate change, not this year’s additions. The excess continues to grow, since reduced emissions are not zero emissions.

Thus, another fallacy: emissions reduction doesn’t do what most people think it does—reduce our climate problem. It does not deserve to be called a “climate solution.” There is a medical name for such treatments: an adjuvant. It's a supplementary treatment that is ineffective by itself but can augment a more effective treatment. Chemotherapy following cancer surgery is an example; it won't reliably reduce a large tumor but may be effective for small tumors missed by the surgery.

Prevention versus Repair

In addition to being ineffective by itself, the clean energy notion of a climate fix is wrong-headed in another way, too. Imagine going to a dentist with a toothache— but getting nothing more than a video on flossing and better brushing.

Once you have a problem, the appropriate action is a repair such as cleaning up the excess CO2, to back out of the danger zone. It’s a fallacy to confuse prevention with repairs and restoration. Yet nearly every public utterance about climate goes right ahead and promotes the fallacy.

Being able to fix a tooth does not, of course, reduce the importance of prevention. The same is true for our climate problem. Clean energy restructuring remains as essential as ever for mid-century. (It would be necessary even if there were not a climate problem.)

But to get to mid-century with our civilization intact, we must also repair climate in the interim. To me, that means cleaning up the air’s 43 percent excess of CO2 within the next several decades. That is also the only action which will reverse ocean acidification. If there is no cleanup of the CO2 excess, our clean energy improvements may be for naught.

Global Warming is only a rough indicator

There is a second reason for the widespread failure to properly understand our perilous situation. The “global temperature” number that you hear about is merely a rough indicator of the trouble ahead. It is not, as the phrase suggests, about the whole earth’s temperature. It is only the near-surface air temperature, averaged over day and night, over both land and ocean, and lumping together all four seasons.

Its rapid rise started in 1977 but, thanks to a more vigorous ocean heat exchanger, it has stalled for the last ten years. The ocean currents are now stashing more warm surface water into the depths and, somewhere else, bringing up cold water to the surface, which cools the air above.

So the earth has not stopped overheating, only the average surface air. This hiatus cannot be expected to endure, given the fickle history of flushing surface waters into the depths.

“Overheating” is the increase in temperature since the good old days. You are free to pick when that was, unscientific as it initially sounds. That’s because the air’s average overheating is not, as many assume, the driver of climate change.

Beware the reification fallacy: averages are not actors. Concepts such as global warming do not push air around.

Uneven overheating, however, does push air around.
  

Uneven Overheating and Climate Instability

Since 1978, the land has been warming nearly twice as fast as the ocean surface. The continents have become hot spots.

This changes where the winds blow. As the warmer continental air rises, it sucks in more wind from off the ocean in a pattern familiar from monsoons. But as winds strengthen, they don’t always follow the customary path and may well deliver their moisture somewhere else. Drought here, deluge there.

So we have to expect a rearrangement of our usual wind and rain, even if we cannot yet predict where or when. The alternative is not a continuation of the status quo. It has already been destroyed.

And as long as further overheating keeps enhancing the temperature contrast across coastlines, there will never be a settled new arrangement of wind and rain, to which food production might adapt. Unless the temperature contrast across coastlines stops rising, there can be no such thing as “climate stabilization.”

If the suitable habitat for a crop was creeping northward with the years, you can imagine tracking it (“adaptation”). But if shifts randomly bounce the suitable habitat all around the continent every few years, tracking is unlikely to work well.

Remaining unsettled is called climate instability, and it will relentlessly undermine both agriculture and infrastructure. In this new era of climate instability, don’t make the mistake of thinking things will change gradually. Or predictably.

Suppose it’s time to dust off the pharaoh’s seven-year plan for stockpiling grain? The world’s current “reserve” will only last eighty days and much of it is held by speculators with a profit motive, not in the public interest by governments.

The Danger Zone from Extreme Weather

Deluge and drought may come from the same shift in the winds. More heat waves and “Arctic outbreaks” are encouraged by the meanders of the weakening jet stream.

Extreme windstorms already have an interesting track record, as insurance companies report that a 20 percent increase in wind speed from 50 to 60 mph causes a 500 percent increase in damage, not 20 percent. (Welcome to nonlinearity.) So damage from higher winds is readily estimated. That from more prolonged heat waves, however, has little data to analyze. But we know that three sleepless nights, as you try to keep from overheating, is a setup for fatalities.

More frequent episodes of extreme weather can strike serious blows to our civilization via our food supply, and do so much sooner than the effects of any slow rise in your local average temperature.

The longer we take in backing out of this danger zone for unexpected lurches, the more risk that a major downwards spiral could start—one that could so disorganize our society that we could no longer act effectively to avoid a devastating collapse.

The Second Manhattan Project

Thanks to forty years of postponed action, time is now of the essence. Effective action must start while we are still strong. That’s because even the fastest cleanup project will take decades before it starts to reverse the climate trend.

First, there is the lead time for a Second Manhattan Project to design a big, fast, and sure-fire cleanup—and then to build it (say, four years with wartime priorities).

Then it takes another twenty years for it to remove enough CO2 to lessen the danger of sudden blows from instability. (That’s my estimate, but I am probably the only scientist who thinks it can be done that quickly.)

The Case for Urgency

And if that timeline does not make a sufficient case for urgency, just look at the trends from the last ten years where it is claimed that “global warming has stopped.”

Climate change did not even pause, showing the fallacy of assuming that overheating and climate change march together in lockstep. Climate change surged ahead as, among other things, the Arctic warming weakened the polar jet stream. That allows it to meander, forming long loops. Some reach down from the Arctic to the tropics. This briefly allows Arctic outbreaks, frigid air spreading much farther south to coat palm trees with a thick crust of ice. Paradoxically, global warming can cause regional cooling for weeks at a time.

Long jet stream loops can also block the usual eastward storm tracks via long ridges of high pressure. Storms, when stalled, can cause three-day downpours and, farther east, a lack of rain. Three years of blocking highs offshore set up the current California drought.

The jet stream detouring around California (green circle is the San Francisco Bay Area) in January 2014 because of the high pressure ridge offshore. At upper left is the low in the Gulf of Alaska.

Blocking highs in both 2003 and 2010 promoted those European and Russian heat waves that just would not quit.
 

That 2011 Preview of the Road Ahead

Among the consequences of the summer 2010 heat waves were widespread crop failures—and the world proved surprisingly vulnerable.

In more than a dozen countries, food riots with fatalities occurred the following winter when world grain supplies ran low and prices soared. A number of improvident governments lost power in the spring of 2011, not having implemented the pharaoh’s seven-year plan.

Yet this is small-scale stuff compared to what could happen if such episodes become more persistent or widespread. Then you can get trapped, neither able to import food from neighboring countries nor able to successfully cross the closed borders. Enter the four horsemen.

When a country invades a neighbor in an attempt to steal food, all cooperation is lost. Similar events within a country get called civil wars, if not genocides. This tailspin can cause a human population crash. It has happened before, on smaller scales.
 

A Collapse of Civilization?

Unless you are trying to promote an apocalypse, you might consider trying to head off such an impoverished future.

Just as a carbon dioxide cleanup means there is nothing inevitable about worsening climate, there is also nothing inevitable about collapse; we are not without resources and ideas. I am quite comfortable about the ability of climate science to understand what’s going on, and am fairly optimistic about our technical ability to clean up the excess atmospheric CO2 within decades.

But the only loud voices regarding climate action seem to be those of the Do-Nothings, often on behalf of special-interest sponsors concerned with protecting profits or property values in the short run. Climate scientists do not have the billion-dollar advertising budgets with which to respond to blatant misrepresentations, nor the armies of lobbyists.

Had enough?

This is truly an existential moment, with enormous consequences that few are talking about.

---

William H. Calvin is a professor emeritus at the University of Washington’s medical school in Seattle and the author of Global Fever: How to Treat Climate Change  (University of Chicago Press, 2008).

September 2014    WCalvin@UW.edu      faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin

“The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East,” a 2011 paper [PDF] by Marco Lagi, Karla Z. Bertrand, and Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute documents the link between riots and high food prices.