Last IPCC Report. What we certainly know about climate change.

Cover of the last IPCC report 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical basis'. Source: IPCC

On Friday, the IPCC published its last report. Probably, you have listened or read something about it during these days. What is the IPCC? and (2) What is this report about?

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. How? The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC, bringing their expertise in the many different disciplines necessary to produce a comprehensive assessment of climate change on a voluntary basis. For the preparation of the last report on ‘Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis’, a total of 259 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed. You can download the report here.

According to the information published on this last report, I want to resume some of things that we 'certainly know' about climate change based on what the last decades of observations tell us. Why do I remark the fact that ‘we  certainly know’? Because the report is cautiously written. It means that consensus is necessary among the scientists that contribute to the report when the degree of certainty in key findings is expressed from very low to very high and from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain. Thus, findings considered virtually certain are supported by data, theory, models, etc. and the scientific consensus. Those are some of these findings.

Some comments to fringe comments

Durante 5 minutos me pareció que volvía al Artico de la que volaba la semana pasada de Frankfurt a Bremen. During 5 minutes of a flight from Frankfurt to Bremen the last week, I had the impression that I was back in the Arctic. 

Siento mucho el retraso, no sólo porque tenía cosas importantes que contaros y no lo he hecho sino porque he de confesar que cuando dejo abandonado el blog me siento culpable. Menos mal que no me pagan por ello, sino no sé qué sería de mí.

Voy a empezar por centrarme en aquello que me parece más urgente de comentar, y sobre lo que muchos de vosotros habréis leído en las últimas semanas. No suelo dejar un post a medias pero el que tenía empezado tendrá que esperar un par de días más porque esto me parece más urgente. ¿Por qué? Pues, simple y llanamente, porque varios comentarios y alguna que otra entrada en un blog me han dejado patidifusa (¡qué graciosa palabra, por cierto!).

1. ¡¡¡Pues no he visto comparar las ciencias relacionadas con el clima en aquellos aspectos relacionados con el cambio climático con la homeopatía!!!
2. ¡¡¡No he leído … que no tenemos motivos por los que preocuparnos por las concentraciones de CO2 en la atmósfera puesto que, aunque aumentando, su concentración es minoritaria en comparación con otros gases que también forman parte de la atmósfera terrestre?
3. …que la actividad volcánica puede conllevar variaciones más significativas de la concentración de CO₂ que la actividad antropogénica?
4. ...que el aumento de CO₂ y de temperatura en los últimos 50-100 no es más que parte de la variabilidad natural?!!!

Intentaré contestar a cada una de estas cosas por separado para quede más claro el porqué de mi estupefacción.

I'm sorry for the delay, not only because I had things to tell you and I didn't do, but because,  honestly, I feel guilty when I leave the blog abandoned. Fortunately, I'm not paid for writing the blog. Otherwise, I don't know how I would handle it.

I will start with the more urgent issue that I think I must explain, and about which you probably have read in the last two weeks. Normally, I don't start a post until I have finished the previous one, but in this case I will make an exception. This is more urgent. Why? Well, simply, because I have seen several comments and some post in a blog that have completely astounded me. 

1. Can you believe that I have read … how some people compare climate sciences in those aspects related with climate change with homeopathy? !!!
2. … that we don't have reasons to worry about the increase of atmospheric CO₂ because its minor concentration when compared with other gases in the atmosphere? 
3. … that the volcanic activity can generate more significative variations of  CO₂ concentration than the anthropogenic activity?
4. … that the temperature and CO₂ increase during the last 50-100 years is just  natural variability?

I will give a response to each of these statements separately to make clearer the reasons of my stupefaction. 

Ocean problems in images: Ocean acidification.

 

Coral Reef (Source)

El primer paso para resolver un problema, es admitir que el problema existe. Los problemas en el océano no son tan evidentes como en tierra firme, pero no por ello no existen. Y nada mejor que ilustrarlos en imágenes para que todos los entendamos, y ya de paso que veamos la importancia de frenar, revertir, mitigar, o cualquier cosa que ayude a no empeorar aún más el estado del océano.

Como os expliqué brevemente en mi post anterior, la acificación del océano es como se conoce a la disminución de pH en el océano. Hoy se observa en muchos lugares de nuestros mares debido a la absorción por parte del océano del CO₂ que en los últimos 150 anos hemos liberado a la atmósfera. 

En principio podemos pensar que eso sólo puede tener efectos positivos, al ser capaz el océano de hacer `desaparecer` de la atmósfera parte del  CO₂ antropogénico y de los gases invernadero, y con ello de sus efectos negativos en el clima.Como siempre las cosas no son tan sencillas.

Esa absorción extra de CO₂ y disminución de pH tiene efectos negativos sobre los organismos con esqueletos calcáreos como los cocolitofóridos (una especie de fitoplancton) o los corales: la disolución de sus esqueletos calcáreos. Qué significa eso? Pasar de tener arrecífes como los de la primera foto a tener arrecifes como estos, llenos de corales muertos. 

Dead Coral Reef (Source)

To resolve a problem, first, we have to recognize that the problem exist. Ocean problems aren't as evident as at land, but still they exist. And...nothing better than to illustrate in images to understand them. It also helps us to show the the importance of stop, mitigation, reversion, or any other available option that helps to not get the ocean state even worse.

Ocean acification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the ocean pH caused by the uptake of part of the CO₂ that we have released to the atmosphere in the last 150 years. We could easily think that this uptake could only have benefit effects, due to the absorption of CO₂ by the oceans reduces the concentration of anthropogenic CO₂ and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, helping mitigate their negative climatic effects. Things are never so simple.

The extra absorption of CO₂ and pH decrease have negative consequences for oceanic calcifying organisms as coccolithophores and corals: the dissolution of their exoskeleton. What does it mean? To have reefs as those shown in the first picture, or reefs full of dead corals.


P.D: Esta no es mi especialidad asi que si no es del todo correcto los comentarios serán bienvenidos. La preguntas por supuesto también. Qué tengáis una buena semana!

I´m not a specialist in Ocean Acidification, and so if something is not completely correct the comments are welcomed. Of course, any question too. Have a very nice week!