Also, on a minor note: They should have called the *index *what they are now calling the *cumulative index*.
The index should be a measure of the state of the system, not a change in the state, if they seek to emulate the Dow Jones Index. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > It would be helpful if the IGBP (or some other group like Alan's, which has > more capability to generate such an index better than most) also had a > variability index that included volcanic eruption effects and El Nino/La > Nina effects on at least global average temperature (in that we essentially > can estimate these, or at least can get a good sense of them by correlation > and fancier analyses of past observations); of course, a problem is that > the > two may not be completely independent. [I'd add in solar variations if I > thought we understand them well enough to do, but in any case best estimate > is that they are smaller--or at least smoother.] > > And if one were clever, one might even do a short-term variation chart for > the CO2 concentration (volcanic eruptions, by scattering light, are thought > to temporarily enhance carbon uptake; ENSO can also have an effect, as can > variations in fires), and they even might have a variability index for how > volcanic eruptions and ENSO affect sea level (or ocean heat content). > > Finally, it is a bit surprising to me (and will be misleading later) that > IGBP uses minimum summer sea ice cover as an index--when this goes to zero, > it presumably will imply that there is no more change going on in the this > component of the Earth system, which will be wrong. It seems to me they > need > to figure out some composite cryosphere index. The sea ice component might > be the average annual fractional coverage of sea ice or sea ice > volume--though that too could go to zero change in the future, but more > distantly. Then add in mountain glacier and ice sheet components, with some > weighting--or maybe make it total ice loss per year from Arctic sea ice, > mountain glaciers, the ice sheets, and even permafrost. This would be > equivalent to the energy going into melting all the ice, so one of the > terms > in the global energy balance (along with ocean heat uptake). > > Mike > > > On 12/9/09 9:22 AM, "Alan Robock" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Ken, > > > > No. > > > > First, there was no eruption in 1996 that affected climate. And how can > > you cherry-pick and choose the same year for El Chichón, whose effects > > were largely masked by the huge El Niño that year, and choose the year > > after the eruption for Pinatubo? Which is it? So your theory that > > these data show beneficial effects from eruptions is wrong. > > > > Second, volcanic eruptions cause drought, ozone depletion, and loss of > > direct solar power. So you have to take the good with the bad and > > carefully evaluate all the effects. > > > > Alan > > > > Alan Robock, Professor II > > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA > > http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > > >> The IGBP has developed a "Climate Change Index": > >> > >> *The index gives an annual snapshot of how the planet?s complex systems > ? > >> the ice, the oceans, the land surface and the atmosphere - are > responding to > >> the changing climate. > >> *...* > >> **The index dips in just three years, 1982, 1992 and 1996 and looks > >> effective at capturing major natural events that affect climate, and > their > >> knock-on effect on the planet. The dip in the curve in 1992 may have > been > >> caused by the massive Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in Indonesia in > 1991. > >> The eruption was large enough to affect temperature and sea level on a > >> planetary scale. The other falls coincide with the El Chichon volcanic > >> eruption in Mexico in 1982 and the volcanic eruption on the Caribbean > island > >> of Montserrat in 1996.* > >> > >> If the IGBP's "Climate Change Index" only shows improvements after large > >> volcanoes, is the IGBP telling us something about the potential for > >> intentional intervention in the climate system? > >> > >> > >> ___________________________________________________ > >> Ken Caldeira > >> > >> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > >> > >> [email protected] > >> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > >> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Virginie Le Saout <[email protected]> > >> Date: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:30 PM > >> Subject: IGBP Climate Change Index > >> To: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *IGBP Climate-Change Index * > >> > >> * * > >> > >> *EMBARGO: 9 December 09:00 CET (08:00 GMT, 03:00 EST, US)* > >> > >> * * > >> > >> * * > >> > >> *Press conference: UNFCCC - COP15,* *Asger Jorn Room, Hall H, Bella > Center, > >> Copenhagen.* > >> > >> * * > >> > >> > >> > >> Some people still question whether Earth?s climate is changing as > rapidly > >> and profoundly as the majority of climate scientists suggest. But, what > if > >> the complexity of the Earth?s climate were distilled down to one number, > in > >> the same way that the Dow Jones Index condenses volumes of data into a > >> single figure? What, then, would be the general trend? > >> > >> > >> > >> The IGBP Climate-Change Index is a first attempt to do just that. It > brings > >> together key indicators of global change: carbon dioxide, temperature, > sea > >> level and sea ice. The index gives an annual snapshot of how the > planet?s > >> complex systems ? the ice, the oceans, the land surface and the > atmosphere - > >> are responding to the changing climate. The index rises steadily from > 1980 ? > >> the earliest date the index has been calculated. The change is > unequivocal, > >> it is global, and, significantly, it is in one direction. The reason for > >> concern becomes clear: in just 30 years we are witnessing major > >> planetary-scale changes. > >> > >> > >> > >> The index dips in just three years, 1982, 1992 and 1996 and looks > effective > >> at capturing major natural events that affect climate, and their > knock-on > >> effect on the planet. The dip in the curve in 1992 may have been caused > by > >> the massive Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1991. The > >> eruption was large enough to affect temperature and sea level on a > planetary > >> scale. The other falls coincide with the El Chichon volcanic eruption in > >> Mexico in 1982 and the volcanic eruption on the Caribbean island of > >> Montserrat in 1996. If this link proves robust, the index is an > excellent > >> visual tool to show how external events can have rapid planetary-scale > >> effects. Of course, the overall direction of change ? a climbing > cumulative > >> index ? highlights the extent human activities are having on the > planet?s > >> climate system. > >> > >> > >> > >> Date > >> > >> Climate-change index > >> > >> Cumulative change in the index > >> > >> 1980 > >> > >> 24 > >> > >> 24 > >> > >> 1981 > >> > >> 37 > >> > >> 61 > >> > >> 1982 > >> > >> -19 > >> > >> 42 > >> > >> 1983 > >> > >> 39 > >> > >> 81 > >> > >> 1984 > >> > >> 9 > >> > >> 90 > >> > >> 1985 > >> > >> 8 > >> > >> 98 > >> > >> 1986 > >> > >> 5 > >> > >> 103 > >> > >> 1987 > >> > >> 31 > >> > >> 134 > >> > >> 1988 > >> > >> 33 > >> > >> 167 > >> > >> 1989 > >> > >> 18 > >> > >> 185 > >> > >> 1990 > >> > >> 34 > >> > >> 218 > >> > >> 1991 > >> > >> 10 > >> > >> 228 > >> > >> 1992 > >> > >> -25 > >> > >> 203 > >> > >> 1993 > >> > >> 14 > >> > >> 217 > >> > >> 1994 > >> > >> 21 > >> > >> 237 > >> > >> 1995 > >> > >> 47 > >> > >> 284 > >> > >> 1996 > >> > >> -6 > >> > >> 278 > >> > >> 1997 > >> > >> 35 > >> > >> 313 > >> > >> 1998 > >> > >> 37 > >> > >> 349 > >> > >> 1999 > >> > >> 15 > >> > >> 365 > >> > >> 2000 > >> > >> 7 > >> > >> 372 > >> > >> 2001 > >> > >> 19 > >> > >> 391 > >> > >> 2002 > >> > >> 34 > >> > >> 425 > >> > >> 2003 > >> > >> 28 > >> > >> 454 > >> > >> 2004 > >> > >> 15 > >> > >> 468 > >> > >> 2005 > >> > >> 43 > >> > >> 512 > >> > >> 2006 > >> > >> 29 > >> > >> 541 > >> > >> 2007 > >> > >> 33 > >> > >> 574 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The idea came about when several IGBP scientists including Steven > Running, > >> IGBP > >> executive director Sybil Seitzinger, former IGBP director Kevin Noone, > Kathy > >> Hibbard, Mark Stafford Smith, Peter Cox, Suzi Kerr and Pierre > >> Friedlingsten realised > >> that the way various global datasets are reported throughout the year > may be > >> confusing. It is uncoordinated, there are a variety of unfamiliar units, > and > >> natural variability sometimes masks a trend. > >> > >> > >> > >> Professor Seitzinger says, ?We felt people outside global-change > research > >> are not clear about the scale of the changes scientists are witnessing. > The > >> index is a response to these concerns.? > >> > >> > >> > >> Why those four metrics? Professor Steven Running from the University of > >> Montana says, ?The iconic Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration was > >> obvious. Global air temperature is already widely reported at the end of > >> each calendar year, so that was a logical choice too. > >> > >> > >> > >> ?We needed an oceanic measure and chose sea-level rise because the > impact is > >> global and of high public interest. The fourth metric concerns the > >> cryosphere. Growing concern about the rate of loss of summer sea-ice in > the > >> Arctic led us to choose this metric. This parameter broadly represents > the > >> Earth system and it is interesting the summer sea-ice extent is > shrinking > >> much faster than models predicted five, ten years ago,? said Professor > >> Running, a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > >> Fourth Assessment Report. > >> > >> > >> > >> In the future, other variables could be added. ?We did not identify any > good > >> land surface variable, because no good standard exists,? says Professor > >> Running. ?But some day we may have annual albedo or land-cover change.? > >> > >> > >> > >> Each parameter is normalised between -100 and +100. Zero is no annual > >> change. One hundred is the maximum-recorded annual change since 1980. > The > >> normalised parameters are averaged. This gives the index for the year. > The > >> value for each year is added to that of the previous year to show the > >> cumulative effect of annual change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Professor Running says, ?Some of us thought we?d need a five-year > rolling > >> average to help dampen fluctuations and to elucidate core trends. But > when > >> we first produced the index it was obvious this was unnecessary: the > index > >> highlights the trend extremely effectively.? > >> > >> > >> > >> The index has been developed with input from a large number of > scientists > >> involved in global-change research. Some scientists questioned whether > >> atmospheric carbon dioxide levels should be included. They argued that, > >> because carbon dioxide drives changes in the three other parameters, it > >> should be excluded. But others argue that it is human activity that is > the > >> external forcing agent. Additionally, as atmospheric carbon dioxide > levels > >> fluctuate, this in turn affects the effectiveness of other major carbon > >> sinks: the oceans and the land. So, given the size of its influence on > the > >> climate, the arguments to include atmospheric carbon dioxide levels > outweigh > >> arguments for exclusion. Recalculating the index without carbon dioxide > >> shows that carbon dioxide does not dominate the trend. > >> > >> > >> > >> IGBP scientists are discussing developing other indices relating to > global > >> change such as an index including land-use, fisheries exploitation, > >> population, fire and extreme events, as well as backdating the new > index. > >> > >> > >> > >> The index will be updated annually. > >> > >> > >> > >> See www.igbp.net for more information > >> > >> Notes for editors > >> > >> > >> Seven images are available. > >> > >> > >> > >> Contact > >> > >> > >> > >> Owen Gaffney > >> > >> Director of communications > >> > >> International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme > >> > >> Email: [email protected] > >> > >> Tel: +46 86739556 > >> > >> Mob: +46 730208418 > >> > >> Skype: owengaffneyigbp > >> > >> Website: www.igbp.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme* > >> > >> The International Council for Science (ICSU) formed the International > >> Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) in 1987 in recognition that climate > >> change is one part of a much larger challenge: global change. IGBP's > vision > >> is to provide scientific knowledge to improve the sustainability of the > >> living Earth. IGBP involves researchers from 74 nations and is based at > the > >> Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. > >> > >> > >> > >> www.igbp.net > >> > >> -- > >> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "geoengineering" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "geoengineering" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
