CICS: Workshops

The first workshop was held in Princeton on October 21 and 22, 2004 to discuss:

Conditions during the early Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago approximately) amount to a paradox: the world was much warmer then than it is now even though the same sunlight was incident on essentially the same global geography, and even though the atmospheric concen-tration of carbon dioxide was essentially the same as today. This paradox implies that climatic conditions then, and those of today, are two very different responses to essentially the same external forcing. The critical questions are therefore: What disturbances can cause a transition from one state to the other? Can the current rise in atmospheric CO² cause a transition?

The workshop’s twenty participants discussed conditions during the early Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago approximately) which amounts to a paradox: the world was much warmer then than it is now even though the same sunlight was incident on essentially the same global geography, and even though the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was essentially the same as today. This paradox implies that climatic conditions then, and those of today, are two very different responses to essentially the same external forcing. The transition from that state (which included perennial El Nino conditions) to the present one involved recurrent Ice Ages induced by Milankovitch forcing. What disturbances can cause a return to the earlier warmer world? Can the current rise in atmospheric CO₂ cause such a transition?

From the observational results it is evident that, in the equatorial Pacific, sea surface temperatures were as warm in the east as the west up to 3 Ma. El Niño was in effect perennial up to that time. The appearance of cold surface waters introduced feedbacks associated with tropical ocean-atmosphere interactions, significantly enhancing climate sensitivity to perturbations such as the Milankovitch forcing. A solution to the Pliocene paradox could be the following important difference between the early Pliocene and today: atmospheric CO₂ has been high for merely a few decades before the present, but had been high for many millennia leading up to 3 Ma. It is entirely possible that the prolonged persistence of high CO₂ levels will cause a return of perennial El Nino conditions.

These results were presented during the final half day of the workshop to a public audience at Princeton University.

Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs

9:00a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Background Presentation on Climate Science, Article 2 of Framework Convention

10:55 a.m. -12:15 p.m. Panel 2: Individual Perception of risk-how people view long term risk

1:25 p.m. 2:55 p.m. Panel 3: Judgment and decision-making with respect to long term risk

3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Panel 4: Communicating Risk (by Scientists, political leaders)

The first workshop was held on November 12, 2004 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The workshop brought together eleven experts in cognitive psychology, social psychology, economics, and public opinion and survey research to present papers on how Americans incorporate information about climate change, and how their views and attitudes compare to those held by Europeans and others. Also discussed was the question of which means of communicating information about climate change are effective and which are not. In a novel feature, the workshop also brought in four climate science experts as discussants to comment on the psychology presentations, leading to lively discussions of long term risk and risk communication. The workshop attracted an audience of about thirty participants, including philosophers, ethicists, and economists, in addition to climate scientists and ecologists. Princeton University participants came from the Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Geosciences, and the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program and also included a half-dozen graduate students from the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Program. A number of participants from NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory were also in attendance.

There is a great demand for information about climate change from scientists. Government, media, educational institutions and the general public are some of the audiences that scientists seek to satisfy. But there have been few studies of how information about climate change is absorbed and interpreted by the public, particularly with regard to how the risk of climate change is evaluated by the public. Landmark studies over the past 25 years have revolutionized understanding of the psychology of risk, yet the climate science community has thus far not incorporated these. Proceedings of the workshop will be published as a special issue.

Leiserowitz, Anthony. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. accepted: Special Volume, Climatic Change.

Sunstein, Cass R. TheAvailability Heuristic, Intuitive Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Climate Change. accepted: Special Volume, Climatic Change.

Krosnick, Jon A. The Origins and Consequences of Democratic Citizens’ Policy Agendas

Lorenzoni, Irene and Nick Pidgeon. Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives

McDaniels, Timothy L. Exploring Risk Perception and Cooperative Learning as Descriptive and Prescriptive Decision Frames for Climate Change

Viscusi, W. Kip and Joni Hersch. The Generational Divide in Support for Climate Change Policies: European Evidence

Viscusi, W. Kip and Richard J. Zeckhauser. How People Assess and Value the Risks of Climate Change

Weber, Elke U. Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet)

This document summarizes the results of a 2 ½ day workshop that was organized by the Cooperative Institute on Climate Science (CICS) on the topic:

Annual and Decadal Variability of the Carbon Cycle and Detection and Attribution of Carbon and Associated Biogeochemical Trends

The meeting was held on 1 to 3 June, 2005, at Princeton University. The purpose of the meeting was to review progress in our understanding of the global carbon cycle, and to discuss future research priorities, with the emphasis on variability and detection and attribution of trends. Attached is a list of attendees and the final agenda of the meeting. The primary organizers were Richard Feely, Jorge Sarmiento and Pieter Tans.

The meeting began with a set of science highlight presentations on the first morning, followed in the early afternoon by a discussion of NOAA programmatics led by Dave Hofmann. The rest of the first day and all of the second day were dedicated to a set of presentations on inverse modeling, atmospheric observations, ocean observation, and prognostic modeling, and included plenty of time set aside for discussion. The purpose of these talks was to expose the group to the most recent observational, inverse modeling, and forward modeling results, and to where the most important gaps in our understanding and opportunities for scientific breakthroughs lie. In addition to the more senior investigators and program managers present, the audience included a large number of graduate students and post-docs who later reported that they found the presentations to be highly instructive and that they appreciated the opportunity to get an overview of where the field is at present.

At the end of the presentations on the second day, and continuing through the morning of the third day, the focus of the meeting turned to a broad ranging discussion of the major research issues, data and modeling gaps, and what is needed for a better understanding of the carbon cycle and how we can take advantage of our joint capabilities within NOAA and associated groups to push forward on resolving them. The discussion began with a review of milestones that NOAA must achieve within the next year or so. These include:

(1) An annual update on the magnitude of the US carbon sink, the first of which is due in September, 2005. NOAA scientists have been asked to develop some metric that provides a measure of the uncertainty in the carbon sink. The carbon sink is reported to be about ±0.6 Pg C/yr at present and it is the goal that this will be improved by ~50% during the lifetime of the NOAA Carbon Cycle Research Program.

(2) The decadal uptake of carbon by the North Atlantic and North Pacific, with the uncertainty in this reduced by ~50% during the lifetime of the NOAA Carbon Cycle Research Program.

(3) Analysis of the interannual variability in the North Atlantic and North Pacific.

(4) An assessment of the carbon component of the global ocean observing system with a proposed metric for the success and improvement of the measurements achievable by the year 2012.

(5) An earth system model ready to run scenarios during FY06 (October ’05 to September ’06).

The discussion of NOAA milestones was followed by a more specific discussion of North American flux maps and what will be needed in order to improve our ability to develop such maps. Among the items discussed were the following:

(1) Plans by Wouter to produce the first NOAA North American flux map by September 2005 are on track.

(2) A discussion of the importance of improved information on ignition frequency and fires needed to explain interannual variability.

(3) The need for fine resolution data sets on fossil fuel emissions, with a promise by Gloor and Crevoisier to produce a virtual data set using information such as from night time lighting.

(4) A discussion of plans for an effort led by Pacala and others to develop a new inverse modeling approach aimed at improving land biosphere models.

(5) Identification of major scientific issues that hinder the development of land models including an improved understanding of tree mortality, the water-CO₂ feedback and its link to evapotranspiration, and the frequency of ignition already mentioned above.

There was also an interesting discussion on the human dimensions problem, including the importance of assessing vulnerabilities, the tie between fossil fuel emissions and air quality, and the importance of linking our large-scale research interests to local issues.

The discussion turned next to air-sea flux maps. The overriding concern of the observationalists was the need for a closer interaction between them and the ocean modeling community. It was felt that ocean modeling needed to be higher on the priority list as a tool for interpretation of observations through inverse modeling and improving our understanding of processes through forward modeling. A particular need is for an ocean model with high resolution forced by realistic surface boundary conditions. The major foci of the NOAA observational program are:

(1) Fluxes on a decadal time scale based primarily on repeat hydrographic sections. The first set of such measurements obtained as part of the CLIVAR program show a considerably greater spatial variability in the decadal uptake than had been expected. Decisions need to be made about the appropriate way to use such observations in order to do global extrapolation.

(2) Seasonal and interannual variability based on ships of opportunity and buoys and including the use of satellite observations for extrapolation. Model simulations, including assimilation models, are needed in order to understand how anomalies develop and are propagated. Present models disagree greatly with each other and appear to underestimate the observed level of variability.

(3) Improving our understanding of gas exchange, with a particular focus on the Southern Ocean. This is presently being tackled by a mix of in situ observations (Wanninkhof et al.) as well as large scale inverse modeling of radiocarbon observations (Sweeney et al.).

(4) Coastal carbon. This program is presently in the initial stages of a basic research mode focused on understanding how carbon functions in these regions.

The next topic discussed was global flux maps of both the ocean and land. Items covered included:

(1) The value of coupling ocean flux maps with the corresponding atmospheric CO₂ observations as in the joint inverse.

(2) The need for a clear strategy to improve our ability to better predict the future trajectory of CO₂ in the atmosphere including a better understanding of the putative large CO₂ land fertilization sink now being called more and more into question, and the need to better understand how changes in ocean circulation and biology will affect the future ocean carbon sink. Strategies for dealing with this include:

b. The need to pin down the tropical carbon budget, including a search for additional constraints on the Jacobson et al. joint inverse model finding of no CO₂ fertilization sink in the tropics.

c. A closer examination of the distribution of the ocean carbon sink between the Southern Ocean and southern hemisphere temperate ocean, which is critical to the result giving a low CO₂ fertilization sink in the tropics.

d. The need to do carbon inventories in the Amazon, particularly given that the flux tower and other methods have not resolved the issue of how large the carbon sink is in tropical rain forests.

The final topic discussed was the remarkable recent findings regarding temporal variability of atmospheric greenhouse gases during the Holocene, with evidence that there may have been considerable anthropogenic impacts for thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. Jim White’s presentation on his carbon-13 measurements in CH₄ during this period excited considerable interest. White commented during the discussion that the paleo-community is already looking at this issue and that it would be good to get the carbon community together with them. Some of the scientific issues/challenges that came up during the discussion included:

(1) The overriding issue is to determine whether or not the response of the carbon system to climate change is capable of non-linear abrupt change that could have a significant impact on the greenhouse gas budgets. There is clear evidence of such changes during the ice ages, but during the Holocene, the challenge is to understand how the signals could have been so small despite the evidence for significant climate change.

(2) A way of focusing research on the above issue would be to ask what it would take in order to reproduce the observed CH₄ signal and other observations from this time such as charcoal in soils, pollen maps, etc. It was felt that taking on this challenge would likely require a good size group of observationalists and modelers.

In conclusion, the greatest value of this meeting was that it brought together a wide range of observationalists and modelers working in the ocean and atmosphere, as well as on land; and on all time scales from seasonal to glacial/interglacial. Correspondingly, the most urgent future needs that were identified by the discussions were for a closer coordination of efforts between the scientists working in these different areas. Specific needs include:

(1) Scheduling regular annual meetings to bring together all the scientists working on the carbon cycle within NOAA and in associated research programs such as in the cooperative institutes, and the need for a carbon steering team to maintain continuity between the annual meetings.

(2) Development of a closer coordination between those working from the ocean side to estimate air-sea fluxes and those working with atmospheric observations to produce CO₂ flux maps over both the ocean and land. Results shown at the meeting give dramatically different land flux distributions when oceanic constraints are used along with atmospheric constraints.

(3) Development of high-resolution ocean carbon models and data analysis methods to assist in improving ocean sampling design and to aid in the interpretation of the sparse oceanic observations.

(4) Closer coordination between those working with terrestrial models and observations, and the atmospheric observationalists, in order to improve estimates of land-atmosphere fluxes; and to improve our understanding of critical terrestrial processes such as tree mortality, fire ignition frequency, and the water-CO₂ feedback.

(5) Initiate research on the Holocene and ice age carbon cycle in order to determine the causes of abrupt carbon cycle changes during the ice ages, and to determine why the atmospheric CO₂ and other carbon cycle parameters have been so remarkably constant during the Holocene.

In support of the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science’s (CICS) intent to train the next generations to deal with the increasing complexity of understanding and predicting climate, CICS collaborated with a Princeton University professional development institute for New Jersey teachers, known as QUEST. QUEST is a long-standing summer program led by Princeton University’s Teacher Preparation Program. The two-week Weather and Climate unit, July 11-22, 2005, was for teachers in third through sixth grades and offered a wide range of inquiry-based experiences through which the teachers could develop an understanding of atmospheric processes and learn methods to teach about weather and climate. The unit was developed and taught by Dr. Steven Carson, formerly a scientist and Outreach Coordinator at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), and is currently a middle school science teacher in Princeton.

The unit began with experiments and measurements involving pressure, temperature and humidity. A variety of activities were used to develop understanding of how energy from the sun is distributed over the earth, the seasons, the ways in which heat is transferred, and the basis and importance of the greenhouse effect. Many of those ideas were then brought together through the demonstration of the principles of cloud formation and the conditions that produce wind. Experiments demonstrating the Coriolis effect served as a basis to understand global circulation of the atmosphere and the generation of tropical cyclones. Hands on activities were used to develop explanations for lightning and tornadoes. Dr. R. Wetherald, a guest speaker from GFDL, further drew on the topics studied to discuss research and modeling concerning causes and consequences of global warming.

PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Week One – 17 teachers in grades 3-6 from the following school districts:

2 from Bordentown

2 from Hillsborough

1 from Lawrence Township

2 from Montgomery Township

2 from Princeton Township

3 from South Brunswick

4 from Trenton

1 from West Windsor-Plainsboro

Week Two – 15 teachers (same as above with the exception of 1 from Hillsborough and 1 from Lawrence Township)

25% participation from high poverty school district (Trenton)

FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS:

“Dr. Steve Carson was exceptionally attentive…fabulous…excellent…extremely knowledgeable. He did a wonderful job of explaining concepts and making it easy to understand. Steve was able to find different ways to illustrate concepts and clear up misconceptions.”

“Two weeks of professional development was great, allowing time for reflection, understanding connections and refinement of content understanding. The time allowed the understanding of “big” ideas in week one and then application to more detailed concepts in the second week. I enjoyed the combination of inquiry activities, hands-on experiments, lecture and discussion. We had all the materials we needed.”

“I was able to apply the concepts and knowledge immediately.”

“I was so impressed – the best workshop I have ever been part of …I can’t think of any weaknesses.”

Professional Development Summer Institute in Weather and Climate

July 10-21, 2006

Taught by Steve Carson

Cooperative Institute for Climate Science

Professional Development Summer Institute in Weather and Climate

July 10-21, 2006

In support of the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science’s (CICS) intent to train the next generations to deal with the increasing complexity of understanding and predicting climate, the CICS collaborated with a Princeton University program called QUEST on a professional development institute for New Jersey teachers, July 10-21, 2006. QUEST is a long-standing summer program of Princeton University’s Teacher Preparation Program. The two-week Weather and Climate unit in which CICS was involved was for teachers in third through sixth grades and offered a wide range of inquiry-based experience through which the teachers could develop an understanding of atmospheric processes and learn methods to teach about weather and climate. The unit was developed and taught by Dr. Steven Carson who was formerly a scientist and Outreach Coordinator at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) of CICS and is currently a middle school science teacher in Princeton, New Jersey.

In the first week of the unit basic principles of weather and climate were explored by the participating teachers. Experiments and measurements involving pressure, temperature, heat transfer, and humidity laid the foundation. Those ideas were then brought together through exploration of the principles of cloud formation and the origin of wind. Experiments demonstrating the Coriolis effect served as a basis to understand global circulation of the atmosphere and the structure of tropical cyclones. A guest scientist from GFDL expanded on the topic of tropical cyclones by presenting background, research and modeling of tropical cyclones. To further expand understanding of storms, hands-on activities were used to develop explanations for lightning and tornadoes. A guest speaker from the Mount Holly Forecast Office of the National Weather Service provided further insight into principles of weather, data collection, and forecasting. A variety of activities were used to develop understanding of how energy from the sun is distributed over the earth, the cause of seasons, the basis and importance of the greenhouse effect, and optical phenomena in the atmosphere.

In the second week more quantitative approaches were used to expand on some of the previous topics and to introduce other new topics. The drawing of isotherms on maps of monthly average temperature was used to develop ideas of climate vs. weather and relate the patterns to principles introduced in the first week. Weather conditions and patterns were further explored through drawing isobars, plotting fronts, and examining a variety of maps and other resources available on the internet. More quantitative experiments were done with the distribution of light energy over the earth and with different ways to measure and express humidity. These were related to models of weather and climate. A second guest speaker from GFDL further drew on the topics studied to that point to discuss research and modeling concerning causes and consequences of global warming. An additional group of teachers studying the interdisciplinary curriculum of science, math, and literature joined the session to explore snow crystals and the reasons for their patterns.

The program gave teachers an understanding of the basic principles behind weather and climate and the integration of those principles with other dimensions of climate change.

PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Weeks One and Two – 21 teachers in grades 3-6 from the following school districts:

1 from Bordentown

1 from Ewing

3 from Lawrence Township

1 from Montgomery Township

1 from South Brunswick

11 from Trenton

1 from Washington Township

1 from West Windsor-Plainsboro

1 from an Independent School

52% participation from high poverty school district (Trenton) and an additional

9% from urban rim/”blue collar” districts (Bordentown and Ewing)

FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS:

“I gained tremendous content knowledge, practical tips, and ideas that I can use in my classroom. The experience underscored, for me, the importance of varying methods of instruction, activities, locations, etc. in a classroom setting.”

“QUEST gives one the opportunity and time to really/effectively learn about a subject taught by someone who really cares.”

“I knew very little about weather coming into the program. My hope was to learn enough about the subject that I could do a good job teaching it next year. I definitely feel as though I gained not only significant amount of content knowledge, but also a wealth of practical teaching ideas. “

“Steve is very knowledgeable about this topic and enjoys sharing what he knows. He is the best! He taught at a great pace and always made sure we understood.”

	Jorge L. Sarmiento Director Professor, AOS Program Princeton University geoweb.princeton.edu/people/ faculty/sarmiento/index.html	306 A Sayre Hall 300 Forrestal Road, Box CN 710 Princeton, NJ 08544-0710 Tel: (609) 258-6585 Fax: (609) 258-2850

	This website was prepared by the Cooperative Institute for Climate Science (CICS) under award number NA17RJ2612 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce.