05/03/2017

'Huge Experiment': The Continent That Climate Change Has Not Forgotten

FairfaxPeter Hannam

It's a curious fact that should you find yourself at the bottom of the ocean almost anywhere on the planet, the water temperature will be uniformly near zero degrees.
That hasn't always been the case. Tropical seabeds 65 million years ago were about 15 degrees when temperatures were higher, says Ian Simmonds, a professor at Melbourne University's School of Earth Sciences.
The Aurora Australia does its bit for researching Antarctic sea ice. Photo: Australian Antarctic Division
During that earlier epoch, the Earth was probably free of sea ice and it was also missing the remarkable processes driven by what's known as Antarctic Bottom Water and the global conveyor belt that distributes it.
Record-low Antarctic sea ice levels reached this week are drawing renewed international attention to climate change at a time when Arctic ice extent is also reaching minimums not recorded before.

Circulation of the Southern Ocean
See underwater ocean storms generated by eddies, waterfalls of cold dense water that plummet two kilometres off the Antarctic Continental Shelf into the abyss and underwater waves hundreds of metres high. Vision: NCI

But scientists say the potential exists for much bigger shifts than demonstrated by sea ice totals alone.
"Sea ice is a canary in the coal mine," Simmonds says. "We are running this huge experiment on the planet."

'Holy grail'
The experiment goes something like this: we dig up and burn carbon trapped for millions of years, changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and the oceans. The Earth traps more of the sun's heat, and temperatures rise – so far about 1 degree. We hope other processes we set in train that we only partially understand don't lift sea levels too much or don't disrupt global-scale processes.
Antarctica looms as a critical place to watch not least because existing data is relatively scant.
NASA and University of California researchers have recently detected the speediest ongoing Western Antarctica glacial retreat rates ever observed. Photo: Getty Images
Accurate satellite coverage of sea ice, for instance, only goes back to 1979 and knowledge of ice volume remains a "holy grail" for researchers, says Jan Lieser, a sea-ice scientist at the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.
At the surface, extreme winds and cold don't make it easy to conduct science (and Australia's Mawson Station is unhelpfully located in a type of wind tunnel). And unlike the Arctic, where submariners needed to keep accurate readings of sea-ice thickness, Antarctic waters have had little such traffic and logbooks.
Still, the overall workings of the global engine that runs from Antarctica are well understood.
Every winter as sea ice forms around Antarctica, salt is rejected from the salty seas, creating a pulse of very cold, briny water. That water flows to the bottom of the sea, eventually finding its way through to much of the world's oceans, equalising temperatures even in the tropics.
The return path, sometimes taking centuries or longer for the complete cycle, transports warmth to the poles, helping to spread equatorial heat to the higher latitudes.
This over-turning cycle, also known as the thermohaline circulation, also transports oxygenated water, helping to ventilate the oceans. It draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere into the oceans too.

Slowing down 
Unfortunately, changes are afoot.
"Certainly there's very strong evidence that this conveyor belt is slowing down," Simmonds says. "It's reinforcing what the models say ... it's one of the consequences of global warming."
Andy Hogg, an associate professor at the Australian National University's Research School of Earth Sciences, works on the models that attempt to capture and project what's going on in Antarctica.
"Even though we know the bottom water is becoming warmer and slightly fresher, we still don't have reliable models that can really describe why that is happening," he says. Less saline water, though, will sink slower and create less of that pulse effect.
"The signals are small but compared with the natural variability, it's fairly clear that it's happening," Hogg says.
One source of the fresher water around Antarctica is that glacier melt is increasing, making seas near the coast less saline.

Record low
What's happening with the sea ice itself will also play a role.
Lieser likens the annual increase and retreat in sea ices to "a giant heaving monster [and] the breathing is getting more hectic and more rapid".
In a typical year, sea ice swells to about the size of Antarctica itself and then melts, losing as much as 90 per cent of its cover.
At the end of the freezing season in August 2014, sea ice extent reached record levels, a result highlighted by climate change sceptics struggling to explain a more consistent reduction in Arctic sea ice.
Two and a half years later, Antarctic sea ice has dived to more than 10 per cent below the previous record minimum, touching 2.075 million square kilometres on Thursday. It might yet sink below the 2-million mark, Lieser says.
A normal range would see coverage swell from about 4 million to 18 million square kilometres, Simmonds says.
"If that range decreased, you'd have a lot less salt rejected" and therefore a weaker pulse for the conveyor belt, he says.

Albedo effect
Matthew England, a professor of oceanography at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, says the loss of polar sea ice at either end of the planet will have an amplifying effect on what are already among the fastest warming regions.
"The sea ice provides a nice reflective surface," he says. "If that was to go, it would have a huge impact on the climate because of the ice-albedo effect."
Absent the ice, more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the oceans, potentially curtailing the ice season at both ends.
"The Arctic has seen really rapid warming because of this loss of sea ice," England adds. "If the Antarctic were to follow suit – and 2016 is a bit of a wake-up call – we would also see an added impact on warming."
Among the concerns is that a slowing overturning mechanism will mean there is less uptake of carbon from the atmosphere but also increased risks for another of Antarctica's vulnerabilities: the ice shelves that face melting from the air above but also from warming waters below.
"The overturning circulation, when it shows down, you stop cool water invading the interior [of the ice shelves]," England says. That means waters at depths of 300-600 metres tend to get warmer.
The path of the global conveyor belt
The blue arrows indicate the path of deep, cold, dense water currents. The red arrows indicate the path of warmer, less dense surface waters. It is estimated that it can take 1000 years for a “parcel” of water to complete the journey along the global thermohaline circulation.
Antarctic bottom water. Source: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; United States Department, Wikipedia
Trigger point
If the ice shelves don't stay intact, glaciers behind them will accelerate their slide, adding yet more fresh water to surrounding seas, but also raising sea levels globally.
"We're going in the direction of a trigger point, but in a broad sense, we don't really know what the value is," Simmonds says.
The scientists caution that a range of negative feedback loops will go some way to counterbalance the forces being unleased by climate change.
If ice shelf waters become fresher, for instance, sea ice can form faster the following year. That process, though, doesn't produce the same salt rejection that drives the thermohaline system.
A slowing in the sinking of briny water also means the transport of warmer waters southwards would also be weaker, a process that may reduce the warm water impact on ice shelves.
"We probably lack the observations and models to make the call which ones are going to dominate," Hogg says.
Lieser says the potential for a slowing or changing direction of the Gulf Stream, which could bring sharply colder conditions for northern Europe, has gained a lot more public attention than what might be happening in the south.
He says it is hard to know when a tipping point might be reached, after which huge global processes will settle into new equilibria.
"There are really cascading consequences in that," Lieser says. "It's a scary thought if you really think it through."

Links

'Clean Coal', CCS And CSG Will Not Save Fossil Fuels – Their Game Is Up

The Guardian - Ian Dunlop

As the Finkel review submission deadline arrives it’s time to accept the inevitable and fix the shambles that is our energy policy
Energy prices will rise but they will rise less with renewables than with coal. Photograph: Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images
Every few years the fossil fuel industry pressures politicians to force “clean coal”, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and more recently coal seam gas (CSG) on an increasingly sceptical community to justify its continued expansion.
This cycle started with the promotion of Adani’s massive Carmichael coalmine in Queensland, for coal export to India. The South Australian blackout followed last September when violent storms blew down transmission towers, prompting instant federal government accusations that excessive reliance on renewable energy was the cause, despite clear advice to the contrary. This also prompted a review of the energy system, led by Dr Alan Finkel, with final submissions due on Friday.
Then, when the long-overdue closure of the Hazelwood brown-coal power station was announced in November, energy security became a political battleground. In passing, Adani was to be offered a $1bn subsidy to construct the Carmichael rail line, and then a further subsidy for a new domestic coal-fired power plant at the mine was mooted to assist the development of northern Australia.
The prime minister’s National Press Club speech in January emphasised the need for “affordable, reliable and secure energy”, denounced the states for their “unrealistic” renewable targets, encouraged energy storage – and then took an evangelical swing back to coal, straight from the fossil fuel industry hymn book. Priority would be given to “clean coal, and carbon capture and storage (CCS and onshore gas (CSG)”, implying that renewables were neither affordable or reliable.
He continued: “The next incarnation of our energy policy should be technology-agnostic – it’s security and cost that matter, not how you deliver it. Policy should be ‘all of the above technologies’ working together to meet the trifecta of secure and affordable power while meeting our substantial emission reduction commitments.”
So what could possibly be wrong with such a sweeping vision? Well, pretty much everything.
Firstly, the speech skirted around the biggest risk facing Australia, namely accelerating climate change. While Australia ratified the Paris climate agreement, our emission reduction commitments are not “substantial”. They are laughable, both in comparison with our peers globally and to have any chance of making a fair contribution to the Paris objectives of holding global temperatures “well below 2C above pre-industrial conditions and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5C”.
Then, to have a realistic chance, say 90%, of meeting the Paris objectives, the world should no longer emit any carbon to the atmosphere. We still emit record amounts today and need some fossil fuels to build the new low-carbon economy, so that is not going to happen. But emissions must peak and decline rapidly. There is no space for any new fossil fuel projects – coal, oil or gas.
“Clean coal” is neither new nor clean. These technologies can reduce emissions by up to 40% relative to conventional practice but that does not solve our problem when the global carbon budget has already been exhausted. Furthermore, costs are increased by up to 30%, rendering coal even less competitive with renewables.
Years of research have failed to establish the basis for CCS expansion at scale. CCS works where emissions are stored in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, which the oil industry has practised for decades. Storage in other types of geological structures is far harder. The few commercial operations in the world today are in the former category. The substantial additional costs of CCS again reduce coal’s competitiveness, particularly if you refuse to price carbon, as the government is doing. CCS will be useful at the margin but it will not save fossil fuels from their inevitable demise.
Additionally, energy prices rose largely because our flawed regulatory framework allowed power companies to invest in unnecessary infrastructure on which they were guaranteed a return. Gas prices rose because the east coast was opened up to the higher-priced international gas market with the construction of export facilities at Gladstone. The unseemly rush into CSG resulted in substantial processing overcapacity, with economic pressure increasing as CSG production was constrained by community objection to the damage caused to arable land and water. Furthermore, high methane leakage rates result in CSG having a greater warming effect than using coal, thereby negating its supposed benefit.
Finally, there is nothing “agnostic” about choosing energy sources when the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy a massive subsidy, far greater than renewables, through the lack of carbon pricing – a subsidy the IMF estimates to be about 60% of coal’s market price. And this is the nub of the problem. Our climate and energy policies are a disconnected and dysfunctional shambles, brought about by years of denial and inaction from federal governments of both persuasions who do not accept that climate change is happening.
But that game is up. Climate change has moved from the twilight phase of much talk and relatively limited impact. It is now turning nasty. Events are moving faster than expected as irreversible climate tipping points are crossed. The economic and social costs of inaction can no longer be swept under the carpet, with regulators here and overseas demanding action to head off a climate-induced financial crisis.
The only way we can avoid catastrophic climate impact now is to initiate emergency action, akin to being on a war footing. That will be accepted shortly as impacts bite and low-carbon technology undermines the fossil fuel industry. In the meantime the damage created by political ideologues must be minimised, so no Adani, no coal-fired power, no CSG.
Our antiquated electricity grids are undoubtedly in need of overhaul but 100% renewable energy grids are being constructed around the world in only a few years, providing genuine energy security and making traditional concepts of baseload power irrelevant. This is innovation at its best.
As for affordability, energy prices will rise, given the extent and speed of change. But they will rise less with renewables than with coal, with greater prospects of cost reduction as technology improves.
We need a new narrative, built around our potential to prosper as a low-carbon society. We have the world’s best renewable resources, the science, technology and engineering expertise to seize what is the biggest investment and job-creation opportunity this country has ever seen.
In addition, we need a taskforce which will pull together the resources and expertise required to initiate emergency action, led by statesmen and women from businesses with a concern to create a genuinely sustainable Australia. It is their future which is being thrown away by fossil fuel industry pressure forcing government to remain firmly entrenched in the 20th century.

Links

White House Eyes Plan To Cut EPA Staff By One-Fifth, Eliminating Key Programs

Washington PostJuliet Eilperin | Brady Dennis

Environmental Protection Agency headquarters (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
The White House has proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget that would reduce the agency’s staff by one-fifth in the first year and eliminate dozens of programs, according to details of a plan reviewed by The Washington Post.
While administration officials had already indicated that they intended to increase defense spending at the expense of other discretionary funding, the plan spells out exactly how this new approach will affect long- standing federal programs that have a direct impact on Americans’ everyday lives.
“The administration’s 2018 budget blueprint will prioritize rebuilding the military and making critical investments in the nation’s security,” the document says. “It will also identify the savings and efficiencies needed to keep the nation on a responsible fiscal path.”
The funding level proposed, which the document says “highlights the trade-offs and choices inherent in pursuing these goals,” could have a significant impact on the agency. Its annual budget would drop from $8.2 billion a year to $6.1 billion. And because much of that funding already goes to states and localities in the form of grants, such cuts could have an even more significant effect on the EPA’s core functions.
Though President Trump professes to care strongly about clean air and clean water, almost no other federal department or agency is as much in the crosshairs at the moment. As a candidate, he vowed to get rid of the EPA “in almost every form,” leaving only “little tidbits” intact. The man he chose to lead the agency, former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, sued it more than a dozen times in recent years, challenging its legal authority to regulate such things as mercury pollution, smog and carbon emissions from power plants.
The plan reflects those past sentiments. As proposed, the EPA’s staff would be slashed from its current level of 15,000 to 12,000. Grants to states, as well as its air and water programs, would be cut by 30 percent. The massive Chesapeake Bay cleanup project would receive only $5 million in the next fiscal year, down from its current $73 million.
In addition, 38 separate programs would be eliminated entirely. Grants to clean up brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites, would be gone. Also zeroed out: the radon program, climate change initiatives and funding for Alaskan native villages.

The agency’s Office of Research and Development could lose up to 42 percent of its budget, according to an individual apprised of the administration’s plans. And the document eliminates funding altogether for the office’s “contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program,” a climate initiative that President George H.W. Bush launched in 1989.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 25 in Oxon Hill, Md. (The Washington Post) 

The staffing reductions, which could be accomplished through a buyout offer as well as layoffs, were among several changes to which the EPA staff was asked to react by the close of business Wednesday. Multiple individuals briefed on the plan confirmed the request by the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The document acknowledges that the cuts “will create many challenges” but suggests that “by looking ahead and focusing on clean water, clean air and other core responsibilities, rather than activities that are not required by law, EPA will be able to effectively achieve its mission.”
Any cuts would have to be codified through the congressional appropriations process and would probably face resistance from some lawmakers. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a former chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on interior, environment and related agencies, said he did not think Congress would approve such a steep drop in funding.
“There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud,” he said, noting that Republicans had already reduced the agency’s budget dramatically in recent years.
Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee, declined to comment Wednesday on the cuts targeted but said in an email that the panel “will carefully look at the budget proposal once it is sent to Congress.”
The EPA also would not comment on the budget proposal. But its new administrator cautioned this week that the particulars of the budget remain in flux.
“I am concerned about the grants that have been targeted, especially around water infrastructure, and those very important state revolving funds,” Pruitt told the publication E&E News after Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday. He said he already had spoken with OMB Director Mick Mulvaney about the agency’s funding.
“What’s important for us is to educate OMB on what the priorities of the agency are, from water infrastructure to Superfund, providing some of those tangible benefits to our citizens,” he said, “while at the same time making sure that we reallocate, re-prioritize in our agency to do regulatory reform to get back within the bounds of Congress.”
It is unclear whether Pruitt’s appeal would produce any ­changes: The document states that any requests from agencies to increase or reallocate funds must be accompanied by budgetary offsets. Those could include “alternative funding cuts, balance cancellations or viable user fees.”
It instructs agency officials to “make sure any appeal is consistent with campaigns or other policy statements.”
Agencies must submit any alternative budget proposals to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Friday, the document states, and OMB will convene a meeting April 15 to discuss the “initial draft of the workforce reduction plan.”
As details of the blueprint emerged, environmental advocates and the EPA’s most recent administrator blasted the White House proposal.
“This budget is a fantasy if the administration believes it will preserve EPA’s mission to protect public health,” Gina McCarthy, who served as the agency’s leader from 2013 through the end of the Obama administration, said in a statement Wednesday.
“It ignores the need to invest in science and to implement the law,” she said. “It ignores the lessons of history that led to EPA’s creation 46 years ago. And it ignores the American people calling for its continued support.”
S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an email that the proposed budget would devastate critical federal financial support for communities across the country.
“These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country,” Becker said.
The instructions to the EPA signal how the new administration plans to delegate many responsibilities to the states even as it decreases the money they will receive from the federal government.
The document directs the agency to get states “to assume more active enforcement roles” when it comes to federal environmental standards. In ­addition, it says, the agency should curtail its compliance-monitoring activities.
“Basically, the direction is to reduce enforcement, which is already pretty strained,” said Eric Shaeffer, head of the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group, and a former head of the EPA’s Office of Regulatory Enforcement. He noted that state programs are often “woefully underfunded” and at the mercy of state politics and pressure from large companies.
Environmental justice activists are particularly alarmed at what they may face with the new administration.
The document states that it supports the idea of environmental justice, but it would eliminate that EPA office and “assumes any future EJ specific policy work can be transferred to the Office of Policy.”
On the South Side of Chicago, the neighborhood where Cheryl Johnson lives is known as “the toxic doughnut” because of the 200 leaking underground storage tanks and 50 landfills there.
The EPA office has given People for Community Recovery, for which Johnson is the executive director, and other organizations money to conduct technical assessment of local facilities and provide training to educate residents. And, Johnson added, it also has provided a place where residents could appeal to force local polluters to come into compliance with federal standards.
Losing that resource “would devastate a community like mine,” she said. It would be “like putting us in a chamber, to be disposed of.”

Links