Climate Change May Be Escalating So Fast It Could Be 'Game Over', Scientists Warn

The Independent - Ian Johnston

New research suggests the Earth's climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an 'apocalyptic side of bad' temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime

If the Earth's temperature rises seven degrees Celsius, it could trigger the kind of runaway global warming that may have turned Venus from a habitable planet into a 460C version of hell

It is a vision of a future so apocalyptic that it is hard to even imagine.
But, if leading scientists writing in one of the most respected academic journals are right, planet Earth could be on course for global warming of more than seven degrees Celsius within a lifetime.
And that, according to one of the world’s most renowned climatologists, could be “game over” – particularly given the imminent presence of climate change denier Donald Trump in the White House.

'Dangerous' climate change could arrive as early as 2050

Scientists have long tried to work out how the climate will react over the coming decades to the greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere.
According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
However new research by an international team of experts who looked into how the Earth’s climate has reacted over nearly 800,000 years warns this could be a major under-estimate.
Because, they believe, the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gases when it is warmer.

A reconstruction of the Earth's global mean temperature over the last 784,000 years, on the left of the graph, followed by a projection to 2100 based on new calculations of the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases (Friedrich, et al. (2016))

In  a paper in the journal Science Advances, they said the actual range could be between 4.78C to 7.36C by 2100, based on one set of calculations.
Some have dismissed the idea that the world would continue to burn fossil fuels despite obvious global warming, but emissions are still increasing despite a 1C rise in average thermometer readings since the 1880s.
And US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will rip up America’s commitments to the fight against climate change.
Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University in the US, who led research that produced the famous “hockey stick” graph showing how humans were dramatically increasing the Earth’s temperature, told The Independent the new paper appeared "sound and the conclusions quite defensible".
“And it does indeed provide support for the notion that a Donald Trump presidency could be game over for the climate,” he wrote in an email.
“By ‘game over for the climate’, I mean game over for stabilizing warming below dangerous (ie greater than 2C) levels.
“If Trump makes good on his promises, and the US pulls out of the Paris [climate] treaty, it is difficult to see a path forward to keeping warming below those levels.”
Greenpeace UK said the new research was further evidence that urgent action was needed.
Dr Doug Parr, the environmental campaign group’s chief scientist, said: “The worrying thing is the suggestion climate sensitivity is higher [than thought] is not incompatible with higher temperatures we have been seeing this year.
“If there is science backing that up, that there’s a higher sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases, that puts at risk the prospect of keeping the globe at the Paris target of well below 2C.
“Anybody who understands the situation we find ourselves in would have already have realised we are in an emergency situation.”
Dr Tobias Friedrich, one of the authors of the paper, said: “Our results imply that the Earth’s sensitivity to variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide increases as the climate warms.
“Currently, our planet is in a warm phase – an interglacial period – and the associated increased climate sensitivity needs to be taken into account for future projections of warming induced by human activities.
“The only way out is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.”
Dr Andrey Ganopolski, who was involved in the research and on the IPCC’s latest report, admitted their work was controversial with some scientists disagreeing and others agreeing with their findings.
“In our field of science, you cannot be definite by 100 per cent. There are always uncertainties and we discuss this in the paper,” he said.
“If we have more and more results of this sort, then we have more reasons to be concerned.”
Dr Ganopolski, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, suggested their findings meant it would be harder to prevent the world entering dangerous global warming of 2C or above.
“Our results mean it is not impossible to stay within 2C but it probably – if we are right and climate sensitivity is higher than this – would require even strong cuts in carbon emissions,” he said.
“Whether it’s feasible politically … I believe it is feasible technically.
“It would be really good to stay below 1.5C or close to that, whether it’s feasible I’m probably a bit sceptical about that.”
Commenting on the paper, Professor Eric Wolff, of Cambridge University, said using data from the past was a “powerful way of understanding the climate”.

Professor Brian Cox clashes with Australian climate sceptic

But he noted the authors had used different ways of estimating average global temperature, some of which had produced “a lower range of values”.
“The estimates of temperature in this paper are subject to large uncertainties, and therefore the range of estimates for 2100 is also very wide,” Professor Wolff said.
“Still, it's encouraging that it overlaps with model estimates and confirms that the emission reductions promised in Paris are essential to avoid unacceptable climate changes."
Mark Lynas laid out what would happen as the temperature rises in his award-winning book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.
He was shocked by the researchers’ results.
“It sounds on the apocalyptic side of bad and, in some ways, it is realistic because ‘business as usual’ just got more likely as Trump wants to rebuild the pipelines … the complete ‘fossilisation’ of the US,” he said.
“It was game over at six [degrees] to be honest. I don’t think there was much more to add, other than turning the planet into Venus.”
Nasa recently said Venus may once have been habitable before runaway global warming turned the planet into its current version of hell with temperatures of more than 460C, almost no water and an atmosphere of mainly carbon dioxide with clouds of sulphuric acid.

Links

• Map shows how climate change will hit world's poorest nations hardest
• Record-breaking heat of 2015 could become ‘new normal’ within years
• China slams Trump’s plan to back out of climate change agreement
• Americans more scared of clowns than climate change
• Trump's views on climate change mean he's a danger to us all

What It Would Really Mean If Trump Pulls The U.S. Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement

Washington Post - Chris Mooney

President-elect Donald Trump pumps his fist after giving his acceptance speech as his wife Melania Trump, right, and their son Barron Trump follow him during his election night rally in New York. (AP Photo/John Locher)

After Tuesday's U.S. election upset, climate change watchers and wonks are scrambling to assess what it would really mean if Donald Trump, true to his word, ditches or simply fails to participate in the Paris climate change agreement (which he could do through a variety of mechanisms). And it does indeed appear that the consequences for international diplomacy, and for the planet, would be considerable.
At the center of the U.S.'s role in that agreement is its ambitious pledge to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels by the year 2025. Presumably, under Trump, we'd no longer see such significant cuts. Indeed, given Trump's campaign trail talk about firing up the domestic coal, oil, and gas industries, we might even see our emissions increase.

Donald Trump will enter the White House with an environmental policy agenda opposed to that of the Obama administration and many other nations that have pledged support to the Paris climate agreement. The Washington Post's Chris Mooney breaks down what a Donald Trump presidency will mean when it comes to climate change. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post) So what would it mean if the U.S. doesn't hit its Paris target, for whatever reason, due to actions taken (or not taken) under Trump?
According to an analysis shared with the Post by the D.C.-based think tank Climate Interactive (based in part on this analysis here), the effect is actually quite substantial. That's because a large percentage of the full emissions cuts produced by the Paris agreement come directly from the U.S.'s individual promise to take domestic action, said Andrew Jones, co-director of the group.
"Pulling out of the Paris agreement matters not just in leadership, but also in a direct impact on the climate," Jones said.
More specifically, Jones explained, Climate Interactive's analysis finds that the U.S. pledge amounts to the avoidance of 22 gigatons, or billion tons, of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions between the years 2016 and 2030. But all of the pledges, by all of the countries, only amount to the avoidance of a little over 100 gigatons. Thus, the U.S.accounts for around 20 percent of the total, which is not surprising, given the size of the country and the fact that it is the world's second largest emitter after China.
So what effect would that have on the Paris agreement as a whole? Noticing that one fifth of its emissions cuts have vanished, Jones said, "I think the rest of the world would be less likely to take action on their own part, and do their own share."
Granted, it is far from certain that a President Trump will be as hostile to the Paris accord as he sounded on the campaign trail — he will have to forge relationships with all these countries that want him to participate in global climate action.
"Governing is different than campaigning," said David Sandalow, a fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. "The Trump team is about to confront that.  Following through on some of his campaign climate statements would come at a cost in terms of his administration's foreign policy objectives."
Sandalow added that the U.S. dropping out of the Paris process could be a boon to its other biggest participant in terms of its emissions — China.
"If the U.S. withdraws from the Paris Agreement, that would create a strategic opportunity for China," Sandalow said. "It would gain credibility globally by sticking with its climate plans even as the U.S. withdraws, helping the Chinese government advance its objectives on a range of topics."
Meanwhile, it's not just that Donald Trump's victory has upended the move towards global climate action — and will likely set the stage for reversal of Obama climate and energy policies at home as well.
The November 8 election also saw the defeat of an initiative in Washington State that would have imposed the nation's first revenue-neutral carbon tax, assessing a $25-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide emitted in the electricity, transportation, and other sectors and then using that revenue to reduce the state sales tax.
Initiative 732, as it was called, actually saw considerable resistance from the environmental left, which felt that revenues from such a measure should be used to advance other social causes, rather than be returned to taxpayers. By the end, a strange bedfellow allegiance had arisen in which some on the left had effectively joined forces with some fossil fuel interests to oppose the carbon tax, even as many climate scientists and economists supported it.
The tough politics hurt the measure even in Washington state's populous and very liberal King County, the home to Seattle, where the initiative barely won a majority. In contrast, King voted for Hillary Clinton by 73.9 percent. Statewide, 58.1 percent of Washington voters ultimately said "no" to the carbon tax initiative.
To be sure, in the context of the bombshell election and its broader negative implications for international climate action, the loss in Washington hardly felt significant.
"In the scheme of things it doesn't really count for much, and I would say that even if it had won, because we're in for many years of backsliding on climate at a time when we really had to ramp it up," said Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center.

Links

• Why scientists are so worried about sea-level rise in the second half of this century
• We're adding record amounts of wind and solar — and we're still not moving fast enough
• Trump's victory shocks international climate negotiations
• Trump victory reverses U.S. energy and environmental priorities
• Solar, wind companies see stocks fall after Trump win
• Trump's energy and environment team leans heavily on industry lobbyists

Turnbull Government, Ignoring Trump Election, Proceeds With Paris Climate Agreement Ratification

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Turnbull government has ratified the Paris climate agreement, formalising Australia's commitment to a global effort to curb carbon emissions and reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
The move comes less than a day after US voters elected Donald Trump, a sceptic of climate science, to become the next president. The US is the world's second-highest carbon-dioxide emitter after China.

Climate change policy was a key difference between US presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Photo: Charlie Riedel

The ratification also comes just before Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg head to Marrakech, Morocco, where a global meeting is taking place to work on the implementation of the Paris agreement.
"Almost a year from the Paris Conference, it is clear the agreement was a watershed, a turning point," Malcolm Turnbull told a media conference. "The adoption of a comprehensive strategy has galvanised the international community and spurred on global action."
The government's target of cutting 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent by 2030 now becomes a global commitment, that "we look forward to actively and fully implementing", he said.
Australia joins more than 100 nations to ratify the global deal agreed last December in Paris.The accord, which aims to stop global temperatures rising more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial times, came into force last Friday. Temperatures have risen about one degree in the past century as CO2 levels have climbed.

Trump cloud
A cloud, however, hangs over the agreement with the Trump election. The Republican candidate and much of his party have vowed to overturn the climate policies of incumbent Barack Obama when the administration changes in January.

The state of our climate in 2016
Australia is already experiencing an increase in extreme conditions from climate change - and it's projected to get worse.

President Obama had made the US commitment to Paris an executive decision, and so is one that his successor could reverse.
Under the Paris agreement, any country signing up cannot exit within three years and must then wait another year before formally renouncing it - although a President Trump may find a faster departure route.

Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest power station, will close next March. Photo: Eddie Jim

Australia's ratification will bring some cheer to climate negotiators in Morocco, many of whom were stunned by the US election of a climate-denying president.
One European delegate told Fairfax Media that some had become upset as the results rolled in on Wednesday.
"Shock. Terrible. Some were in tears," said the delegate, describing the reaction. "Many - like me - were blocking it out and seeking refuge in sarcasm."
Malte Mainshausen, director of Melbourne University's Climate & Energy College, said it may be best for the Paris agreement if the US withdraws given Mr Trump's anti-climate stance.
"While likely detrimental to the geopolitical interests of the US itself, that would open the door for the club of the willing to move forward...rather than being held up on that common journey by a destructive voice from within," Professor Mainshausen said.
"If Australia plays its cards correctly, it could still manage to grab the opportunity of becoming the energy superpower in a zero carbon world now that the US seems to have temporarily abandoned that contest."

'Important signal'
Erwin Jackson, deputy chief executive of The Climate Institute, said Australia's move "sends an important international signal" that nations would stick by their climate pledges.
Investors and the wider community in Australia would also take some heart the government was staying its course, he said.
"China's not going to stop decarbonising, [billionaire] Elon Musk is not going to stop building his giga-battery factory," Mr Jackson said.
Frank Jotzo, deputy director of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, said ratification would give Australia a stronger position in the climate talks in Morocco.
"The Paris Agreement has entered into force, so part of the Marrakech meeting serves as a meeting of the parties to the agreement, Australia can now be part of that," Professor Jotzo said.
"The day after Donald Trump's election, it sends a signal that one of the United States' strongest allies remains committed to the UN climate change process," he said.

'Direct threat'
Ms Bishop also stressed the importance economic opportunities from carbon curbs.
"The global low-emissions economy is estimated to be worth around $6 trillion and is growing at some 4-5 per cent per annum," she said. "We believe, through the use of technology and research and science and innovation, there will be many opportunities for Australian businesses."
"Australia has a strong track record on international emissions reduction targets. We beat our first Kyoto target by 128 million tonnes and are on track to meet and beat our second Kyoto 2020 target by 78 million tonnes."
Mark Butler, Labor's climate spokesman, welcomed the ratification but noted Australia's commitment is not yet backed with policies, citing research by the Climate Action Tracker.
"The Turnbull Government has no policy for renewable energy investment post 2020, which is also crucial to meet our Paris obligations," Mr Butler said. "As the ACTU has also pointed out, nor does the Government have a plan for a Just Transition to a clean energy economy, as the Paris Agreement calls for."
Adam Bandt, the Greens climate change spokesman, also applauded the government's move.
"The Trump presidency is a direct threat to the Australian way of life as it makes it harder to stop runaway global warming," Mr Bandt said.
He noted President-elect Trump reportedly plans to appoint Myron Ebell, a prominent climate change denier, to head the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has been a key conduit of President Obama's climate policies.
"Trump has started a climate war in the United States and if he carries out his threats, there will be a rise in civil disobedience as people start taking direct action to stop new gas and oil developments in particular."

'Vital step'
Simon Bradshaw, Oxfam Australia's climate change adviser, said the government now had to introduce policies so the promised targets could be achieved.
"While ratification is a vital step and should be celebrated, the government is yet to do the math on what the agreement means for Australia and the scale of action we must take if we're to do our part and help avoid a much more dangerous future," Dr Bradshaw said.
The ratification, though, was not without its critics.
Prior to Thursday's announcement, One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts took to social media to call for the government to drop its plans:

IMAGE

Links

• Australia ratifies climate change deal
• Australia formally signs up to climate agreement
• Australia ratifies Paris agreement amid fears of Trump withdrawal'
• Quite sobering': How 2015's record heat could become the 'new normal'
• And yes, the sky really is falling because of climate change
• Why our fire season has become weeks longer