Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming.
Seattle Times article: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/aerosols-from-burning-fossil-fuels-are-masking-global-warming-uw-researchers-find/
Nature paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y
I chose a news article from the Seattle Times titled “Aerosols from burning fossil fuels are masking global warming, UW researchers find.” The article was published in June of 2022 and referenced a research paper published in Nature earlier in that same month by Dvorak et. al. That paper was titled “Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming.” The authors of this study used a model to track temperature change up to the year 2100 following a hypothetical cessation of all emissions, a zero-emissions commitment or ZEC, in 2021. They found that a warming peak would be observed first, followed by a slow cooling period.
My initial perception of the Seattle Times article was fairly positive. I appreciated that the author used direct quotes from experts, including one of the authors of the study, to minimize the risk of misinterpretation. I would have appreciated more discussion of the study itself as much of the news report is dedicated to an overview of the basic facts about climate change, although I do think that the reporter handled that discussion well. Additionally, just by knowing that the study’s findings are based on a model, I was wary of the fact that the news article barely mentions any sort of uncertainty that may be associated with these findings.
The study uses the FaIR emissions-based climate model to specifically study the amount of global warming that is already unavoidable based on our past emissions, what the authors call the “geophysical warming commitment.” When modeling future warming based only on CO2 emissions it would seem that we are not committed to surpassing key global warming checkpoints, however Dvorak et al. explain that the picture is more complicated when aerosol and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are taken into account.
The authors of this study selected their model parameters by fitting against historical data, and successfully found that their posterior model closely matched both historical temperature records as well as IPCC Sixth Assessment Report predictions. The authors found that in the decades following emissions cessation (ZECpeakanthro) there was a 42% chance that we are committed to peak warming of at least 1.5 C relative to 1850-1900 and a 2% to reach 2 C based only on past emissions. This is due to the effect of aerosols, as a rapid decrease in aerosols following emissions cessation would actually unmask the warming potential of greenhouse gasses. However, the authors also found that our warming commitment would drop to a median of -0.4 C below 2020 temperatures by the year 2100 (ZEC2100anthro) if we were to cease all emissions in 2021 . Following this, the authors studied how ZECs would change following eight different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). If we were to follow the middle-of-the-road SSP, SSP2–4.5, the model found it likely that a ZECpeakanthro of 1.5 C would be reached six years earlier than if emissions were never ceased, and a ZECpeakanthro of 2 C four years earlier than if emissions were never ceased. Consistent with the results discussed earlier, the authors found that a ZEC2100anthro of 1.5 C would be reached 15 years later than by not ceasing emissions.
Overall, I would rate the Seattle Times article a 7/10. I found that it conveyed the main message of the study, that we still have time to stop emissions before committing to an extreme long-term temperature increase, rather well without getting bogged down in the details present in the study. That said, I believe the author had a responsibility to explain the uncertainties present in models such as this one. Additionally, a large portion of the study is spent discussing zero-emissions commitments in the context of SSPs, which the report fails to mention at all.
I appreciated that this article stressed the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as aerosol emissions, even though the immediate aftermath would lead to a warming peak. Although I think this article did a good job of explaining that we need to reduce emissions even though the loss of aerosol will lead to more warming than expected temporarily, I can see how an article on this topic might be construed in a way that makes it seem like reducing anthropogenic emissions will lead to the planet warming which could be very damaging, so I think any popular media articles on this topic will have to be very careful in their explanations.
ReplyDeleteHi Katie, I agree that the author could have put more attention towards explaining why it is still a net positive to reduce emissions to make it easier for readers to understand. I definitely think that there are a lot of people reading these kinds of articles that are looking for ways to misconstrue things, so reporters have to be especially careful to explain these kinds of issues clearly.
DeleteI think the news article did a good job with its explanations (ex: aerosols and green house gases) and its vocabulary for the urgency we must do in order to reduce emission. However, I think it would be helpful to know the depth of a increase of 1 degree in terms of climate, because to the general audience it might be minimal/insignificant.
ReplyDeleteHi Faridat, that's definitely something that I missed in my review of this article! Discussions like this should always include reasons why people should care about the issue, so I agree that a greater discussion of the effects of a 1.5 degree bump in temperature would have been very helpful, or at least I would have like to seen links to some sources for further reading.
DeleteHi Tarun! There were a couple of sentences in the news article that I found to be a bit misleading. For example, the second sentence in the article - "eliminating greenhouse gases would stabilize the planet in the long term" is just frankly incorrect. This gives the general public the wrong idea, that we somehow need to completely get rid of all of the CO2 in the atmosphere in order to fix global warming. In my opinion, the author of this article should've been a lot more careful with word choice in order to not give the reader the wrong idea about climate change.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily, I agree with what you are saying. The study in this case was specifically talking about eliminating emissions, not greenhouse gases as a whole, so I think the author could have done a better job of making that distinction as early into the article as possible.
DeleteHi! Thanks for sharing. I thought the seattle times article had a really good hook with the first sentence, and later followed up on it with the quote from Kyle Armour, but I wish they elaborated a bit on what "climate change becoming worse" would actually look like.
ReplyDeleteHi Sabrina, I definitely agree with you. There are a lot of people reading these kinds of articles who don't really understand the effects of climate change. That's why I agree that articles like this that are trying to get people to care about climate change should really explain the effects in further detail so that readers can get the best view possible.
DeleteThank you for your thoughts on these articles! I was wondering, considering the "house of cards phrase we've been using, do think it was better that they didn't really explain the uncertainties? Do you think there would be some consequences from talking about them?
ReplyDeleteHi Monica, I understand where you're coming from that talking about the uncertainties in these kinds of models could make some people wary. I don't think the solution is to avoid discussing these uncertainties, but rather to follow up with an explanation that we have very good empirical evidence for the effects of climate change, and so people do need to care.
DeleteHi Tarun! First, Nice Review! I think the topic you choose shares some common ground on my topic (which is the last one!) that aerosols actually can block sunlight and prevent us from global warming. From reading the new article, I think the author almost associated the aerosols with CO2 in the sense that aerosols = CO2. Do you think maybe there is a better way that the author can do better in terms of clarifying it?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the author of the news article did an overall good job presenting the information. Something that stands out to me is that the author of the news article seems to have made a choice to mention some of the nuanced detail of aerosol emissions in the beginning, but then focused on discussion primarily greenhouse gases (GHGs). Do you agree with this choice to mention the role of aerosols, but then to focus on GHGs? Do you think there should have been more of a discussion on aerosols for a more comprehensive understanding by the reader?
ReplyDeleteHi Tarun, great job on this! I think the author did a good job summarizing the findings of the paper but I agree that they could have included more information about uncertainties of the model. Additionally, the author mentions that the planet's natural systems could be significantly worsened by a temporary increase in temperature, but they fail to elaborate further on that point. Readers could potentially misunderstand this as the author saying that natural disasters stemming from the temporary increase in temperature are worse than they would be if no action is taken to stop GHG emissions.
ReplyDeleteHi! Great post! I was looking through some of the comments on the Seattle times article to get a sense of how well the general public understood it. Someone actually pointed out, just as you did, that the author did not mention the model that they were using and the discrepancies with it. Another person was confused on if the data was still accounting for natural aerosol production or if the data was based on the elimination of natural and unnatural aerosol production. How would you have cleared that up?
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point that the article may have missed the mark on truly representing all that was covered by the scientific article. However, I think this can be advantageous in some ways, as it filters down the content that would be of interest to a more general audience. I feel that the news article did a nice job in conveying the most important aspects of the scientific article in a way that was not overwhelming, and I agree with your ranking of 7/10. Nice work!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your write up! I did have a question though - if the writer of the news article were to have included information on how the model was developed or produced, do you think it would add to the overall significance that the author was trying to portray? Or do you think it would be necessary and instead just confuse the readers more? I think a lot of times news article authors tend to leave out important information like this because they believe that it is not that important for readers to understand, but often times the results can lose their nuance.
ReplyDelete