Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Chemistry Nobelist Addresses Climate Change

Mario J. Molina, who won a Nobel Prize for identifying the danger to the ozone layer from chloroflourocarbon refrigerants, headed the American Association for the Advancement of Science committee that issued a recent report sounding the alarm on climate change.The report sums up the consequences, present and potential, of continued emission of greenhouse gases in clear and accessible language.  Summing up the current situation the report says:
The evidence is overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.
The New York Times summary of the report's discussion of future possibilities says:

The new report walks through a series of potential consequences of planetary warming, without asserting that any is sure to happen. They are possibilities, not certainties, and the distinction is crucial for an intelligent public debate about what to do. The worst-case forecasts include severe food shortages as warming makes it harder to grow crops; an accelerating rise of the sea that would inundate coastlines too rapidly for humanity to adjust; extreme heat waves, droughts and floods; and a large-scale extinction of plants and animals.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Global Warming and the use of Data

The causes and possible responses to global climate change intimately involve basic chemical principles.  The general consensus on these issues is clear   A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece questions the scientific consensus.  While the WSJ op-ed page is definitely not a scientific journal the authors of the piece offer the following data to support their claims:

cat

The Guardian offers a response to the WSJ piece taking on the points raised in the WSJ piece more or less one-by-one.  The Guardian piece offers the following data to support their claims:








Hansen et al. (1981) global warming projections under a scenario of high energy growth (red) and slow energy growth (blue) vs. observations (black).  Actual energy growth has been between the two Hansen scenarios.              
Hansen et al. (1981) global warming projections under a scenario of high energy growth (red) and slow energy growth (blue) vs. observations (black). Actual energy growth has been between the two Hansen scenarios. 

The purpose of the current post is simply to raise the following questions for the consideration of students.  From what is shown of the two figures which provides the most useful and relevent information on the global climate change problem.