03/08/2016

Looking, Quickly, for the Fingerprints of Climate Change

New York Times -  Henry Fountain

Scientists attribute several extreme weather events to climate change. Clockwise from top left: a 2013 drought in New Zealand; fires in Los Angeles last month; a 2014 heat wave in Australia; flooding southeast of Paris in June. The goal of the research is to get sound scientific analysis to the public to help counter misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, about an event. Credit Clockwise from top left: Christine Cornege/New Zealand Herald, via A.P.; Gene Blevins/Reuters; Daniel Munoz/Getty Images; Jeremy Lempin/European Pressphoto Agency
When days of heavy rain in late May caused deadly river flooding in France and Germany, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh got to work.
Dr. van Oldenborgh is not an emergency responder or a disaster manager, but a climate researcher with the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. With several colleagues around the world, he took on the task of answering a question about the floods, one that arises these days whenever extreme weather occurs: Is climate change to blame?
For years, most meteorologists and climate scientists would answer that question with a disclaimer, one that was repeated so often it became like a mantra: It is not possible to attribute individual weather events like storms, heat waves or droughts to climate change.
But increasingly over the past decade, researchers have been trying to do just that, aided by better computer models, more weather data and, above all, improved understanding of the science of a changing climate.
Attribution studies, as they are called, can take many months, in large part because of the time needed to run computer models. Now scientists like Dr. van Oldenborgh, who is part of a group called World Weather Attribution, are trying to do such studies much more quickly, as close to the event as possible.

Scientists did not attribute climate change to other weather events, including ice floes in Antarctica in 2014, left, and bush fires in Malaysia in 2014, right. Credit Left: DeAgostini/Getty Images. Right: Mohd Rasfan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 
"Scientific teams are taking on the challenge of doing this kind of analysis rather rapidly," said Peter A. Stott, who leads the climate attribution group at the Met Office, Britain's weather agency.
The goal is to get sound scientific analysis to the public to help counter misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, about an event.
"It's worthwhile to give the best scientific evidence at the time, rather than not saying anything and letting others say things that are not related to what really happened," said Friederike Otto, a researcher at the University of Oxford who works with Dr. van Oldenborgh.
In the case of the European floods, World Weather Attribution, which is coordinated by Climate Central, a climate-change research organization based in Princeton, N.J., released a report less than two weeks after the Seine and other rivers overtopped their banks. The group concluded that climate change had made the French flooding more likely, but could not draw a conclusion about the flooding in Germany.
"In the French case, we had five almost independent measures, and they all agreed," Dr. van Oldenborgh said. "With Germany, we only had two, and they disagreed."

The scientists were uncertain about the link between climate change and recent flooding in Germany. Credit Sven Hoppe/European Pressphoto Agency
Climate scientists have said for decades that global warming should lead to an increase in extreme weather like heat waves and droughts. Because more water evaporates from the oceans and warmer air holds more moisture, climate change should also lead to more intense and frequent storms.
Studies have shown that these effects are occurring on a broad scale. The National Climate Assessment, for instance, notes that heavy downpours have increased across most of the United States in the last 25 years.
But analyzing individual events is problematic, largely for two reasons: Weather is naturally variable, even without climate change, and global warming may be only one of several factors influencing a particular event. Since reliable data is required, studies are also less likely to be undertaken for events in countries that lack much data-collecting infrastructure, or where governments do not share data widely.
Dr. Stott, of the Met Office, was the lead researcher for an early attribution study, a 2004 paper in Nature that linked a deadly 2003 heat wave in Europe to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since then the pace of such studies has increased; last year, a publication of the American Meteorological Society, edited by Dr. Stott and others, had 32 studies of 28 events, covering all seven continents.
Not all of them found a link to climate change. A study of water shortages in southeastern Brazil during a dry period in late 2014 and early 2015, for instance, found that the shortages were most likely driven by increasing population and water use than by climate change.
But other analyses — of a 2013 heat wave in Argentina, extreme rainfall in the Cévennes Mountains in France in 2014 and an extremely hot spring in South Korea that year — found a connection.
David W. Titley, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was chairman of a National Academies committee that looked at developments in the field of climate-change attribution, said that at this point studies of heat waves and other extreme-temperature events appeared to produce the most reliable assessments.
Studies of extreme rainfall are considered less reliable in finding links to climate change, and studies of events like wildfires and severe thunderstorms even less reliable.
Still, Dr. Titley said, such studies are worth doing, as long as certain conditions are met.
"There are very legitimate reasons why people want to do this rapidly," he said. "But they need to state very clearly what the assumptions are, what the methods are, what the confidence level is," he said.
"This is still not like predicting what time is sunrise for New York City tomorrow," he added.
Attribution studies usually involve running climate models many times over. Because no model is a perfect representation of reality, varying them slightly for each run and averaging the results give scientists more confidence in their accuracy.
One set of runs simulates the climate as it actually is, incorporating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, while the other set simulates the climate as if that human influence had never happened.
Researchers then compare historical data, as well as data from the actual event, such as rainfall or temperatures, to the different model results to assess any climate-change impact. The analysis is usually given in terms of probabilities, or increased or reduced likelihood, that climate change had an effect.
Rather than running models after an event, researchers like Dr. van Oldenborgh and Dr. Otto shorten the process by using models that have already been run.
"The only way we can do this rapid attribution is by precooking everything that we can," Dr. van Oldenborgh said.
The process starts with emails among members of the group, usually followed by a Skype session to discuss whether a specific event is worthy of study. (One group member is in Australia, so arranging a conference call can be tricky.)
At least one member of the group also has to have time to do the work. "You have to put everything aside for a week" said Dr. van Oldenborgh, who did most of the work on the flood analysis because the other researchers were at a conference.
A crucial part of the task is to define the event — what happened and what meteorological variable is best to study it. In the case of the European study, the models the researchers used simulate rainfall, not flooding. So they used rainfall as the variable.
"We can't look at flooding, only extreme precipitation," Dr. Otto said. "Where did it rain, how much did it rain?"
But they also consulted with a hydrologist who understood how rainfall affects the river systems involved, Dr. van Oldenborgh said, "just to make sure we didn't do something stupid."
Among the models they use is one that Dr. Otto's group at Oxford, the Environmental Change Institute, runs regularly, using the personal computers of a large number of volunteers, a project called climateprediction.net. While the model is a global one, regional results can be extracted and used for the rapid analysis.
Dr. van Oldenborgh said that the European flooding analysis was a good illustration of the need for transparency, because while the researchers were confident in their findings for France, they acknowledged that they could not draw conclusions regarding Germany.
"We have to make sure we're open-minded enough to conclude that, although we've spent a lot of time on this, we can't conclude anything," he said.
When the initial analysis is completed and released to the public — Climate Central helps with the communication process — the work is still not over. Although the hope is that such studies will eventually become so routine that there is no need to publish the findings in a scientific journal, for now, at least, a research paper has to be written and submitted for peer review. So for the flooding analysis, that was another week's work for Dr. van Oldenborgh.
"The worst problem is that you're pretty tired and want to take a break and put your feet up," he said. "We haven't got a solution for that yet."

Links

Earth's Fever Is Rising, Scientists Say in Annual Report

Voice of America - Associated Press

FILE - Participants are seen in silhouette as they look at a screen showing a world map with climate anomalies during the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) at Le Bourget, near Paris, France, Dec. 8, 2015
Earth's fever got worse last year, breaking dozens of climate records, scientists said in a massive report nicknamed the annual physical for the planet. Soon after 2015 ended, it was proclaimed the hottest on record. The new report shows the broad extent of other records and near-records on the planet's climatic health. Those include record heat energy absorbed by the oceans and lowest groundwater storage levels globally, according to Tuesday's report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"I think the time to call the doctor was years ago,'' NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report, said in an email. "We are awash in multiple symptoms.''
The 2015 State of the Climate report examined 50 different aspects of climate, including dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice and glaciers worldwide. A dozen different nations set hottest-year records, including Russia and China. South Africa had the hottest temperature ever recorded in the month of October: 119.1 degrees Fahrenheit (48.4 degrees Celsius).
"There is really only one word for this parade of shattered climate records: grim,'' said Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb, who wasn't part of the report but called it "exhaustive and thorough.''
But it's more than just numbers on a graph. Scientists said the turbocharged climate affected walrus and penguin populations and played a role in dangerous algae blooms, such as one off the Pacific Northwest coast. And there were brutal heat waves all over the world, with ones in India and Pakistan killing thousands of people.

One-two punch
Much of the intense weather occurred because of a combination of a natural El Nino — the periodic warming of parts of the Pacific that changes weather globally — and increasing man-made global warming.
"This impacts people. This is real life,'' said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden, co-editor of the report, which was published Tuesday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Oklahoma University meteorology professor Jason Furtado said in an email that the report, which he wasn't part of, illustrates the combined power of nature and humans on Earth's climate: "It was like injecting an already amped-up climate system with a dose of [natural] steroids.''
About 450 scientists from around the world helped write the report, and in it NOAA highlighted one of the lesser-known measurements, ocean heat content. About 93 percent of the heat energy trapped by greenhouse gases — such as carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas — goes directly into the ocean, the report said. And ocean heat content hit record levels both near the surface and deep.
NOAA oceanographer Gregory C. Johnson, a study co-author, said the oceans are storing more heat energy because of man-made climate change with an extra El Nino spike.
Johnson summed up Earth's climate in a haiku, published deep in the report:
El Niño waxes,
warm waters shoal, flow eastward,
Earth's fever rises.

Links

Neoliberalism Poisoned Climate Action And Renewables Are The Antidote

New Matilda - 

IMAGE: Chuck Coker, Flickr.
The dominance of 'econobabble' and market approaches have hurt climate action. That's why renewable energy is vital to the future of the climate and the economy, write Dan Cass and Andrew Bray.
The world seems particularly chaotic this winter. The climate news is diabolical, with fears about melting of the Arctic permafrost and the ancient ice stores of the Himalayas. There is a Royal Commission into the brutal treatment of children in prison in the Northern Territory. And that is before we get to ISIL terrorism and other mass shootings in Europe and America.
There is Britain's brain-snap exit from Europe and the punchline that Boris Johnston and the other Tory geniuses have no clear plan for it. And there is The Donald. The Republican Party's candidate for President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.
All these problems require sane collective action, which means democratic use of the power of the state. The good news – and don't we need some – is that after three decades, our handcuffs are coming off. Since the 1980s (or even the mid-1970s according to Michael Pusey) the west has slowly strangled itself and the rest of the world with a political obsession that goes under the name of "neoliberalism" (or "the Washington Consensus", the Australian version of which Pusey called "economic rationalism").
During the recent Federal election, Australia took a step away from the naïve adoration of markets and lower taxes. The Coalition had to accept that generous superannuation tax breaks for the super wealthy are not good policy. Both sides of the aisle heard the message that wealthy property investors are less deserving of tax breaks than first home buyers. The Coalition may be set on giving a $51 billion hand out to corporate Australia but it is unpopular and may be resisted in the Senate.
It is against this background that we want to put forward a new idea, framed in response to a recently published essay titled Balancing Act, by George Megalogenis, the Australian author and economics graduate. Our idea is that renewable energy provides the perfect act of renewal for the democratic state at this time.
In Balancing Act, an issue of the Quarterly Essay series, Megalogenis pinpoints the driver of much of the malaise in Australian policy making; neoliberalism, or the "open model" as he calls it. He says that it time to accept that the open model which both sides of politics have implemented over the last thirty years gives us no path to future prosperity and the voters, yearning for long-term vision, want "a return to some form of government intervention in the economy".
In our response to his Quarterly Essay, we want to briefly explore how Megalogenis's arguments about the need for state intervention could be used to;
  • slash greenhouse gas emissions
  • build a reliable consensus in climate politics
  • help fix the economic model.
Our argument is that the new conversation about government intervention in the economy provides a way to solve the climate riddle, by moving beyond the "market fetish".
Megalogenis writes:
The Coalition can't lay claim to the future until it adjusts to the two big shocks of our age. The first shock is that the version of capitalism favoured by the conservatives is broken… The second shock is that the international community may finally be ready to tackle climate change.
Policy solutions that match the global warming threat require transformation, not tinkering. As Megalogenis rightly points out, these processes of restructuring require governments to stop simply devolving agency to the invisible hand of the market.
The return to regulation in the economy could revitalise the environmental agenda, cutting through the impasse of carbon politics with a healthy dose of nation building in the area of renewable energy. It would replace fifteen years of neoliberal environmental orthodoxy with a new agenda that is both more rigorous and more popular.

Neoliberal Environmentalism
(IMAGE: Thom Mitchell.)
Environmentalism from the 1960s until the 1980s was a diverse movement. There were public transport and urban design activists calling for more rational, convivial cities. Conservationists campaigned to protect biodiverse forests from destruction. Greenpeace put its ships in the way of nuclear testing and toxic waste dumping. Deep greens proposed new cultural paradigms to replace consumerism and economic growth.
Then, at some point in the late 1990s, the climate threat became so great that it rightly dominated the environmental agenda in Australia and around the world. This occurred at the same time in history that free market ideology was ascendant. The timing was tragic.
Until this point, environmentalists responded to global warming with tools that had already worked in achieving environmental and other policy progress. These were forms of government regulation: bans on some chemicals and practices, standards on imported and locally manufactured products, incentives for clean production, plans for rational design of cities around mass transit.
Unfortunately, however, greens became convinced that the best and perhaps only way to save the climate was to monetise it. (Or more accurately, to monetise tradeable rights to pollute the climate.) We reduced the complexity of a global system out of control into the mere absence of a price signal.
Rather than build a social movement for transformation, we operated like technocrats. We learned to speak in what The Australia Institute's Richard Denniss calls "econobabble". Too tentative to pick winners – solar and wind over coal and gas – we hid behind economic talk of carbon prices and market architectures. It is no wonder the public cooled to global warming.
The emerging criticism of the open economy doctrine now allows us to return to a more rational and constructive conversation. Megalogenis says "The debate we have to have is on the role of government in the economy". The practical program he prescribes starts with public investment in infrastructure.
Our view is that the first candidate for this infrastructure development should be the switch to clean energy for electricity and transport. Australia's economic opportunity here is vast as we have prodigious renewable energy resources which are tragically underdeveloped. We also have the opportunity to create goods for export.
Recent announcements in electric vehicles indicate just how rapidly the world will move towards green industries. The Netherlands and Norway are looking to have only electric vehicles sold by 2025 and India has an astonishing goal to replace all of its petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles by 2030.
If the Paris climate agreement succeeds, this would require wealthy countries such as ours to decarbonise our energy sector by about mid-century. For long-term assets such as energy infrastructure, achieving a complete rebuild before 2050 means starting immediately with a concerted program of investment. This is a massive economic undertaking and requires strong government intervention. According to the International Energy Agency, rebuilding a clean energy system by 2050 would cost US$44 trillion globally. (Crucially, it would save US$115 trillion, because fuels such as the sun and the wind are free as well as renewable.)
Giles Parkinson, the editor of RenewEconomy, estimates that Australia will end up spending $130 billion on electricity networks over 20 years from 2000 to 2020. He calls this "pure folly", propping up last century's old, dirty, one-way electricity model, when our competitors are investing in renewable energy, battery storage and smart grids that will deliver cheaper, cleaner, more secure energy. Our mal-investment will be of little use when energy companies like AGL eventually retire their coal-burning plants. Australia cannot afford waste on this scale. Nor can our climate bear the consequences of further delay.
What is needed to transform the energy system is for government to set a clear goal to decarbonise by mid-century and take firm hold of economic levers to make it happen. The National Energy Objective – the foundation of all energy policy in the country – needs to be modernised to include decarbonisation as a goal, alongside secure and efficient delivery of energy.
This greening of the energy and transport sectors would create real investment in long-term, productive assets. It will generate jobs and new industries. It is a perfect example of the kind of government action that Megalogenis recommends.
The reason that we are both so upbeat about the renewables boom is that it offers everything that carbon politics failed to deliver. Where carbon markets are abstract, renewables are tangible; solar panels and wind turbines you can touch. Carbon markets created a small number of direct jobs within the banking sector – which is hardly the world's most loved profession – but building renewables and a smart grid will generate millions of mostly blue collar jobs around the world, according to a recent report from the intergovernmental International Renewable Energy Agency.
Where carbon price schemes are ultimately just another globalised market – like currencies or commodity futures – renewables can be owned and operated by local communities. For example, most of the wind farms in Denmark are local co-operatives. Shareholding or direct ownership of clean energy – especially rooftop solar – gives it an unassailable social license, with electoral support across the political spectrum.
With the rise of smart grid technologies, even urban communities can own their own 'virtual' power stations; roof-top solar and household battery power, traded and optimised in real time, providing reliable energy to replace baseload coal.

Energy As Innovation
(IMAGE: Flickr, CeBIT Australia)
Prime Minister Turnbull has called for innovation. Smart energy is innovation on steroids. Australia already has start-ups making hardware and software that we should export to a world hungry for clean energy. Reposit is building solar and battery storage systems that sell their aggregated energy into the grid, like a virtual power plant. Redflow is developing consumer and utility-scale batteries on the 'flow' design, which can provide very high durability energy storage and safety and sustainability improvements over conventional lithium-ion batteries.
A combination of 'push' policies that stimulate innovation and 'pull' policies that provide stable demand for renewables (and storage and smart grids) would liberate a wave of entrepreneurship for the Prime Minister. These products, services and new business models are more responsible exports than coal and they are becoming more competitive. Even if no top-down mandate for clean energy emerges from the Paris climate agreements, the natural growth of unsubsidised renewables will be worth US$7,800 billion by 2040 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Former Australian Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, speaking at the Paris climate talks.
The most important reason to rebuild climate politics around renewables (as distinct from carbon markets) is the politics itself. Renewable energy has a super-majority of support (70 per cent plus of the electorate), in major markets all around the world. Polling commissioned by the Australia Institute found that three quarters of Australians would support a party that boosted solar and battery storage and 63 per cent are prepared to endorse a national switch from fossil fuels to renewables by 2030.
Even in Australian wind districts, where a vocal minority of opportunistic politicians have whipped up anti-wind farm panic, an amazing majority prefer wind and solar to coal or gas. Detailed polling in ten wind districts in 2011 found 83 per cent of people support wind power. Carbon markets are nowhere near as popular.
Tony Abbott's 'great big new tax' scare campaign killed carbon markets in the popular imagination (assuming they were ever truly popular to start with). Similarly, toxic misinformation makes it impossible to conceive of a bipartisan national carbon market policy in the US. Strange, extreme ideas are also percolating up in the Tory party in England, including paranoid notions that wind turbines cause 'infrasound' sickness and death.
Prime Minister Turnbull's post-election cabinet reshuffle has created a perfect political setup to take a renewable energy leap forwards. Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has taken on the Environment portfolio. It is a high risk situation for Frydenberg, because the 'jobs versus environment' frame through which these issues are seen means he appears to have to choose either energy or the climate. Encouragingly, he recently told a clean energy conference that his job was to "move energy into the environment [portfolio]".
As one of us has written in The Guardian:
It depends entirely on whether the two sides of the portfolio – energy and the environment – are set in conflict or in harmony with each other. … 
If Frydenberg does not move quickly to capitalise on this innovation, then he is caught between coal and a hard place. He either fails one half of his portfolio or fails the other half. …  
Unleashing the renewables revolution is the only way that the new minister can do something significant for the environment and at the same time, build Australia's energy resources and energy security. This is an opportunity that Greg Hunt never had when he was environment minister. 
Renewables are the best and perhaps the only way to save the debate about saving the climate. If Megalogenis is right, then Australia has a narrow window of opportunity to use government intervention to reinvent our economy and rebuild crumbling infrastructure.
The stakes are cultural as well as economic. Dark forces and racist politicians are on the march around the world. Restoring public faith in a collective, democratic space is a protection against the demagoguery that Trump is bringing to the gates of the White House, if not to the Oval Office itself. Clean energy infrastructure is the first and best candidate for a new approach to nation building on a planet in peril.

Links