Aerosols from burning fossil fuels are masking global warming, UW researchers find
Mason Flora
News Article: Aerosols
from burning fossil fuels are masking global warming, UW researchers find
Scientific Article: Estimating the timing
of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming
The article “Aerosols from
burning fossil fuels are masking global warming, UW researchers find,”
published on June 8th of 2022 by The Seattle Times, overviews
recent findings that claim aerosols released from burning fossil fuels can have
a net-cooling effect that may mask some of the deleterious effects of anthropogenic
emissions. These findings come from a study done at the University of
Washington called “Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and
2.0 °C of global warming” by Kyle Armour, an associate professor of oceanography
and atmospheric science, and colleagues.
Their study was conducted using an
emission-based climate model called the Finite Amplitude Impulse Response
(FaIR) model. Using this, they were able to run climate change simulations
based on past emission standards dating to the pre-industrial era. The two main
metrics that they were measuring were the changes in global temperatures in
terms of zero-emissions commitment (ZEC) for both the peak temperature reached
after an abrupt stop in emissions (ZECpeak(anthro)) and the global temperature
reached by the year 2100 (ZEC2100(anthro)). They ran this
estimation using eight different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) that differ
in their severity of anthropogenic emissions leading up to the year of abrupt
cessation of emissions. The novel approach taken in this study also considers
the magnitude of global aerosol forcing, which is what the article in The
Seattle Times chooses to focus on.
As seen in Figure 1, there seems to be an overshoot period of continued warming for several years after the halt of emissions that the researchers suggest is due, in part, to the decreased aerosol emissions that had worked to counter the warming effect of the greenhouse gases. When these aerosols are no longer being produced, their relatively short lifespans in the atmosphere (days to weeks) mean that their cooling effect will decrease as the concentration of the existing aerosols reduces rapidly. This will result in the “unmasking” of a portion of the greenhouse gas forcing and the subsequent warming of the Earth even after complete emission cessation.
Figure 1:Constrained FaIR ensemble global temperature projections.
The article from The Seattle Times mainly focuses on the overshooting period of continued warming. The author, Nicholas Turner, does a good job of providing some of the empirical evidence resulting from Armour’s study, including the probabilities of global warming exceeding 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius within the next decade, without oversimplifying the issue. That being said, Turner does a poor job of properly framing Armour’s findings. For instance, the probabilities that the Earth will meet or exceed 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius warming in the next decade apply for the peak (ZECpeak(anthro)) of global warming in that period, that would then be followed by a consistent cooling into the end of the century (ZEC2100(anthro)). This detail is not presented until the end of the article, and the finding that “committed warming of 1.5 °C in 2100 will not occur with at least 66% probability until 2055” is omitted entirely.
Apart from the scientific
paper that this article is based on, Turner uses several different sources including
the Landmark Paris Accord, the World Meteorological Organization, and direct
quotes from both Kyle Armour and an administrator from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. These diverse sources of information strengthen Turner’s
argument and do well to stress the importance of immediate and drastic change in
the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, I would give this article a
7/10. It does well to present diverse information efficiently but is unable to
capture the scope of the scientific article that it is based on. The data provided
in the article can be found with a superficial reading of the scientific paper,
and most of it can be found simply in the abstract. That is to be expected from
such a brief article, but an in-depth analysis of the paper and a figure or two
would have done well to better inform the reader of this important
environmental issue.
Hi Mason, as another presenter I am glad that our articles both touch on aeorosols' cooling effect on the climate, which is a very complicated, computation-heavy subject. So I do agree with you that news reporters may struggle presenting the key information. I also found the title of the article about aerosol masking global warming does not well summarize what the author discusses, which is the general trajectory of global warming, subsequent hazards, as well as how urgent this issue is. Besides the detail you picked out that was ignored, I found that the overshoot period before eventually cooling would also be worth mentioning because this highlights why it is important considering aerosols when mitigating climate warming. For example, the ZECpeak,anthro of 0.22 deg C relative to 2020 would have an overshoot that lasts for approximately 18 years before cooling.
ReplyDeleteHi Tiantian, I agree that it's fortunate that both of our chosen articles are on the topic of aerosol cooling effects in the atmosphere. It certainly is missing some important information that should be included in this discussion - the eventual cooling and stabilization after the abrupt halt of emissions would have offered this article a much more optimistic outlook. In my opinion, the temporary overshoot of continued warming should have been elaborated in much greater detail instead of having a primary focus of this article be the political issue of global warming.
DeleteI saw a similar thing this summer that more more specific about the masking effect of clouds seeded sulfer dioxide from ship engines. This was an interesting continuation of learning about this topic. I agree that the broader scope given in the article by the different sources is one of its best aspects. Especially because it puts everything in context of climate regulations.
ReplyDeleteHi Katherine, while I do think that the diverse range of sources serves as a source of strength and credibility to the article overall, I personally would have preferred a more narrow focus on the topic of atmospheric aerosol cooling. That being said, for such a brief article, it does well to report some appropriate details from the scientific paper and tie them back to something more immediately applicable in the real world, which is the need for reduced emissions.
DeleteI agree with your 7/10 rating. This article did a good job explaining the science in a digestible way. It is hard to overlook the omission of some pretty crucial details, though. It makes the article a bit misleading. This was really interesting to learn about, and the article was helpful for undeerstanding when paired with the paper.
ReplyDeleteHi Cody, I do think this article did a good job of making the science digestible and easy to understand, which is probably a part of why the author refused to dive deeper into the science as he did not want the message he was trying to convey to get lost in a sea of statistics and scientific jargon. I would definitely recommend to anyone reading this article that they should also read the paper that it is based on if the topic interests them!
DeleteThis is a very interesting point of consideration, and one of the reasons why I think considering technology that not only enables cessation of emission, but can also consume CO2 (or other green house gases) from the atmosphere and turn it into value-added, collectable products is key to our Earth's future.
ReplyDeleteHi Kelsey, I also noticed that even the most optimistic of the global emissions models in this paper would still leave the Earth in an uncomfortable position in terms of lingering greenhouse gases, albeit much better than we are now. I agree that our position would be much better with the advancement of carbon sequestration and conversion technologies. Unfortunately, those kinds of considerations are without the scope of this article, and were not mentioned in the source paper either. However, a call for these kinds of advancements in addition to political action would have been welcome.
DeleteHi Mason, it is a great article that suggests a 42% chance of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius warming within a decade, even if emissions halt now. If emissions cease by 2029, that chance increases to 66%, raising questions about the delicate balance between greenhouse gases and aerosols. It underscores the urgency to phase out fossil fuels, but even immediate emission cuts won't prevent a temporary temperature bump. This challenges the pace of climate action and the Paris Agreement's goals. Can we swiftly achieve net-zero emissions while adapting to climate impacts? I am also wondering how can we harness innovative technologies and policies to not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also mitigate the potential short-term temperature spike associated with aerosol loss, ensuring a more stable climate transition?
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting finding to learn about. One thing that I think the news article would have improved from is to use fewer diverging sources. That way, the news article can talk in more detail about the latest findings rather than trying to cover everything at once. I also agree that the author was misleading in terms of the probability of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius. Overall, I'd give this article a 7 out of 10 as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Richard, I completely agree with your statement about the diverging sources. Being such a brief article, it gains nothing from broadening its view so far. The direct quotes from an author of the scientific paper is pertinent to the argument at hand, but I feel that the other sources serve to muddle the original purpose of the article. The title promises a focus on the novel findings of these scientists, but the article seems to veer to a figurative "call to arms" for the immediate cessation of global emissions.
DeleteI found that the article did a fairly good job communicating the main take aways but agree that a figure would have been helpful. The title of the news article was a surprise to me... Personally, I would not have summed up the contribution of aerosols to the earth's warming projections as "masking". I wonder if they needed a more neutral, and slightly misleading, title to attract a wider demographic of potential readers.
DeleteI think all the different solutions that environmental chemists have come up with to solve climate change are all super interesting. The graph really helped me understand this paper more because it put all those propositions onto one figure and showed what would happen if we were to follow those propositions. I also didn't really know how the differences in these solutions. You hear "zero emissions by 2030" in the news a lot for example, but what about the other ideas that scientists have come up with? The SSPs were a new idea that I had never heard of but was excited to hear about. It's interesting to see that we have mapped out so many possibilities to stop the warming of the planet and taken so many factors into account.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with your rating of the article, as it was certainly helpful in identifying important aspects of the research presented in the scientific paper; however, the author could have clearly included other significant findings as well. I'm not a fan of reading about scientific research without being exposed to graphs or charts or other organized ways of presenting data, so it is a bit disappointing that the article does not do this, even though the research paper clearly does so. Nonetheless, I agree with others in that the direct quotes are certainly helpful and important since they come straight from the research paper and hence the scientists themselves. I'm also satisfied with the way they made the research simple for any audience to read, especially since this area of research is extremely important to the public's eyes - not just the people studying climate change, as this quote sums it up very well: “The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to...We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day.”
ReplyDeleteHello Mason. I think your post encapsulates well the way that I felt about this article, in that it's general message was pretty good and well supported with data from the research article, but the author does omit or not fully present all of the data available in this case. While I certainly agree with your criticism of the article for not including important data from the research, as I think this is the author not quite doing their due diligence to the subject, I would probably rate the article a little bit higher. I would do this because I think the author still conveys effectively the message that we need to stop emissions urgently because warming will continue even afterwards due to the absence of the cooling effect of aerosols, and despite missing some data the data used is still strong, so perhaps an 8/10 would be appropriate in my opinion.
ReplyDelete