Earth’s Climate Sensitivity and Related Institutional Sensitivity
Carbon dioxide is on track to double its pre-industrial level. It is now 420 parts per million, up from 280 ppm. How much will doubling carbon dioxide increase temperature? Though simple to pose, the question of climate sensitivity is devilishly complex to answer.
Earlier this year, in a cutting edge Science Advance paper, the paleoclimatologist Vincent Cooper and colleagues estimate climate sensitivity of 2.9°C. Their paper has data and computer models galore. Their statistics describe not just Earth’s current temperature and climate, but also temperature and ice sheets 21,000 years ago.
Those reconstructed temperatures, derived from marine microfossils, separately estimate past ocean temperatures in the west Pacific, east Pacific, and southern oceans near Antarctica. Their computer model of coupled atmosphere/ocean/ice climate dynamics is grounded in the chemistry, physics, and climatology of carbon dioxide, water, and other greenhouse gases, and contains a detailed description of continents, oceans, and ice fields.
A central difficulty faced by Cooper, and indeed by all scientific studies of climate sensitivity, is that the direct impact of carbon dioxide emissions get amplified. With no amplification pathways, doubling carbon dioxide would cause only about 1.1°C warming.
Yet actual climate sensitivity is at least double what carbon dioxide acting alone would cause. Water mediates many of those amplification pathways. Depending on whether it is liquid, vapor, ice, or clouds, water can either diminish or amplify the temperature increase from carbon dioxide alone. For example, ice reflects sunlight, but water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas.
Perhaps worse, those amplification pathways not only increase Earth’s temperature, but also increase error. Amplifying error is not good. In a study that extrapolates Earth’s climate out many decades, it is inevitable that small initial errors in temperature data or model specification will get amplified into big errors.
The Cooper paper is a tour de force. Yet, their estimate has wide error bounds, with a 95 percent chance that climate sensitivity is somewhere between 2.1°C and 4.1°C. I doubt future climate studies will materially reduce these error bounds.
What I found most striking about the Cooper paper is a pressing issue they do not mention at all—how will carbon dioxide alter human institutions? This might be dubbed institutional sensitivity. As an exemplar, consider the ecosystem of institutions that govern water in the western United States. These include many factors: prior appropriation water right law, irrigation districts, the California Water Project, the Clean Water Act and its rules and case law, the Army Corps of Engineers, federal, state, and private governance of dams, state governance of groundwater, economic markets, and so forth.
These institutions are being stressed. Under threat of immediate water curtailments on hundreds of thousands of acres of Idaho farmland, in June past senior and junior water rights holders agreed to a one-year mitigation plan that will allow the Idaho Department of Water Resources to lift its proposed curtailment orders.
To be clear, it is not at all obvious that the Idaho water shortages are related to climate change. Over millennia, even in the absence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the western United States has been subject to regular extreme droughts and floods. Moreover, climate models typically do not allow a specific drought or flood to be attributed to climate change.
Even so, while the direct impacts of carbon dioxide on temperature, rainfall, and overall climate are quite worrisome, I suspect our more immediate concern should be on how carbon dioxide impacts human institutions. Institutions, not temperature, will mediate most all climate impacts on humanity. Human institutional ecosystems now dominate natural ecosystems. They resolve conflicts and promote cooperative use and sharing of water and all other critical natural resources. Were they to fail under the pressure of climate change, there is an extreme downside.
Alas, we cannot quantify this downside risk. The Cooper paper is grounded on data going back tens of thousands of years. By contrast, essentially all western water institutions came into existence post-Civil War. And while the Cooper analysis of climate sensitivity is based on well verified scientific principles, such as quantum mechanics and black body radiation, no comparable general principles might guide an investigation of institutional sensitivity.
When change—-climate or otherwise—-carries a material risk of catastrophic failure, the only rational politics and policy is one of extreme conservatism—-conserving the existing climate, and thereby conserving existing natural ecosystems and existing human institutions.
Earth’s Climate Sensitivity and Related Institutional Sensitivity.