03/05/2017

How Would Just 2 Degrees Of Warming Change The Planet?

Live Science - Laura Geggel

Why do a few degrees make such a big difference? Credit: underworld/Shutterstock
The Earth is home to a range of climates, from the scorching dunes of the Sahara to the freezing ridges of Antarctica. Given this diversity, why are climate scientists so alarmed about a worldwide temperature increase of just 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius)?
Changing the average temperature of an entire planet, even if it's just by a few degrees, is a big deal, said Peter deMenocal, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.
"A person living in any one location can experience huge changes in weather and even in climate, but those are often compensated by changes on opposite sides of the world," deMenocal told Live Science.
  Right now, the world is about 2.1 degrees F (1.2 degrees C) warmer than it was during preindustrial times, deMenocal said. The 144 countries participating in the 2016 Paris Agreement announced that the world should limit the global increase in this century to 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C), a stricter limit than the former goal of a 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) increase.
To put 2.7 degrees F into perspective, just about 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) separates the modern world from the last ice age, which ended about 15,000 years ago, deMenocal said. During that time, sea levels were about 350 feet (106 meters) lower than they are today, because an extensive amount of water was stored as ice at the poles, he said. During that ice age, about 32 percent of Earth was covered in ice, compared to just about 10 percent today, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Earth's climate changes over time — the last ice age is evidence of that — but it's the rapid rate of change and the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide filling up the atmosphere that have scientists concerned, deMenocal said. Moreover, global warming doesn't just increase temperatures; it also threatens the food, water, shelter, energy grid and health of humans, he said.

Food
Climate change affects the ecosystems that provide food, "and therefore our security of food is linked to the security of those ecosystems," deMenocal said.
The oceans, for instance, provide people with about 20 percent of their dietary protein, deMenocal said. However, ocean acidification caused by climate change makes it difficult, if not impossible, for thousands of species, including oysters, crabs and corals, to form their protective shells, which in turn disrupts the food web, Live Science previously reported.
On land, an increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) would almost double the water deficit and would lead to a drop in wheat and maize harvests, according to NASA.
Northern latitudes may see a temporary boost in soy and wheat farming, partly because of the warmer temperatures farther north and partly because increased carbon dioxide helps plants grow, NASA said. But at an increase of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), this advantage almost disappears for soy, and entirely vanishes for wheat, NASA reported.
If temperatures get too hot when these plants are flowering, their growth can become stunted, leading to decreased or no edible food crop, such as corn or grain, NASA said.

Shelter
As temperatures warm and glaciers melt, the corresponding sea-level rise can destroy homes and cities. About 40 percent of the world's population lives within 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the coast, deMenocal said. In 2010, more than 123 million people, or 39 percent of the United States' population, lived in counties touching the shoreline, according to the National Ocean Service.
"Collectively, that is the single biggest investment at risk due to climate change as sea level rises," deMenocal said.
From 1901 to 1990, the average global sea levels rose about 0.04 inches (1.2 millimeters) per year, but from 1993 to 2010, the levels rose about 0.11 inches (3 mm) a year, meaning the rate of rise more than doubled, according to a 2015 report in the journal Nature.

Energy
About 7 percent of the United States' electricity generation in 2013 came from hydropower, which accounted for 52 percent of the nation's generated renewable energy that year, according to the Department of Energy.
However, reduced snowpack and shifting rainfall patterns may reduce hydropower in the long run, deMenocal said.
"This is now threatening the American West and some European areas as well," he said.

Health
Increases in temperature and changing rain patterns are associated with the spread of vector-borne diseases (which another organism transmits between humans or from animals to humans), such as Lyme disease and malaria, deMenocal said.
"Even if it [a vector-borne disease] is eradicated locally in a particular region, the weather changes associated with climate change can lead to migrations of these vector-borne diseases to new regions," he said.
Furthermore, because of health concerns, some regions of the globe, such as parts of the Middle East and the American West, may become inhabitable to humans because of extreme temperatures, deMenocal said.
That's because humidity often increases with the heat index. When both are high, the human body is unable to evaporate sweat to cool itself. "If you're unable to evaporate [sweat], you can actually die from exposure," deMenocal said.
Extreme temperatures can also lower productivity among workers. According to a 2014 Bloomberg report on the economic risks of climate change, extreme heat, especially in the American Southeast, may lead to a 3 percent drop in outdoor worker productivity, including among people who work in construction, utility maintenance, landscaping and agriculture. This drop is twice that of the "productivity slowdown" that happened in the 1970s, which likely occured because of high inflation and economic instability, the report said.
All of these threats are just around the corner, deMenocal said. The Earth is anticipated to exceed the 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C) milestone in about 15 years — between 2032 and 2039, deMenocal said. The planet is expected to surpass the 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) benchmark between 2050 and 2100, he said.
"If we're on our current emissions scenario, it's even sooner than that," he said. "Even over the last 8,000 years, we haven't seen a temperature extreme this rapid and this fast and large.

Links

CSIRO: Leaked Emails Reveal Claims Organisation 'Missing In Action' On Climate Advice

ABC Science - Anna Salleh | Gregg Borschmann

CSIRO says it's not shying away from providing advice to government on climate, but critics argue otherwise. (Lucy Barbour)
Leaked emails from 2015 reveal a bitter dispute within CSIRO, Australia's leading science body, as management tried to prevent top scientists from breaking ranks before the Paris climate summit.
The disagreement took place after CSIRO declined to make a formal submission to a government consultation about Australia's new emissions target.
The emails detail internal concerns that, at key moments dating back to 2009, the organisation had been "missing in action" in providing advice on climate change, and that it should not be trying to "operate behind closed doors" with government.

Science on the frontline
What are the rules of engagement for CSIRO scientists?
Critics say these tensions between CSIRO management and scientists are a symptom of ongoing self-censorship by an organisation fearful of offending government and losing funding.
But CSIRO has defended its actions, arguing it is fully engaged in advising government and contributing to policy debates on climate change.
Spokesman Huw Morgan said that in some instances CSIRO avoided contributing to specific inquiries because of their policy focus and the organisation's desire not to "advocate, defend or publicly canvass the merits of government or opposition policies".
CSIRO has guidelines for its researchers, which encourage them to speak publicly about their areas of expertise — provided they do not stray too far into policy.
But that distinction can be difficult to draw and the resulting uncertainty, according to CSIRO's critics, has left scientists feeling frustrated and fearful.

A difficult decision
In March 2015, the Abbott government called for submissions on greenhouse gas reduction targets, ahead of the Paris climate summit in December.
But in an email on April 8, Jenny Baxter, then CSIRO's executive officer environment, told key managers and climate scientists the agency would not be making a submission.
She wrote:
"The questions posed in the discussion paper are very policy focused and difficult for CSIRO to answer directly as a trusted adviser. CSIRO is already well connected into various relevant government agencies and processes and can likely achieve greater impact via these channels through targeted discussions and provision of information/advice."
Dr John Church, a senior CSIRO sea-level-rise expert who lost his job in a 2016 cull of the organisation's climate scientists, says he was "outraged" by the decision, since he believed the public had a right to hear from the scientists they funded.
He circulated Ms Baxter's email to colleagues with the opinion: "Disappointing, but hardly surprising that CSIRO has decided not to stand up for science."
Dr Church asked one particular colleague whether he was planning on "doing anything".
That colleague, a senior scientist in CSIRO's oceans and atmosphere division, replied saying he shared Dr Church's "disappointment" and believed CSIRO should not be operating "behind closed doors".
He also expressed concern CSIRO had already been "missing in action" at critical times, as far back as the lead-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit.

Separate submission goes ahead
Top sea level rise expert, Dr John Church, lost his position at CSIRO during CSIRO's 2016 cull of climate scientists. (ABC News: Angela Ross)
Dr Church then decided he and several colleagues would make their own, private submission to the review.
He says he was "very strongly discouraged" by his superiors. Dr Church also says a series of private phone calls from management led to two junior colleagues withdrawing their names from the submission.
"I was willing to take the risk and see what happened; they had young families and couldn't take the risk," he says.
The submission eventually went ahead, without the names of those two junior authors, under the auspices of the Australian Academy of Science.
At the last moment, when it was clear he would not back down, Dr Church says CSIRO changed its position.
Senior management sent an email saying they were "happy" with his involvement in the Academy submission, and gave permission for his name to be listed "in the acknowledgements as a private individual".
"My interpretation of that is they just didn't want to be caught out as trying to stop me," Dr Church says.
"Once they failed, they thought they had better be seen to be supportive."
CSIRO, however, argues it was simply ensuring the rules were followed.
"Originally, three scientists intended to make a submission in a private capacity," Mr Morgan says, adding that those original submissions would have breached relevant guidelines.
"This was discussed with the individuals concerned. Subsequent decisions to participate or not were taken by the individuals involved."

Fearless advice and trusted advisers
Mr Morgan also refutes the idea CSIRO was "missing in action", including in 2009.
"CSIRO officers provided evidence-based input … through relevant departments and were involved in many formal and informal discussions and briefings, media articles and public debates."

When being a scientist is
politically dangerous
In some countries, free thought and experimentation can get you thrown in jail. Hear more on ABC RN's Science Friction.
Nonetheless, repeated disagreements between scientists and senior management over the agency's role in communicating climate science point to fundamental divisions within CSIRO.
"When I joined the organisation they were known for giving fearless advice," says Dr Church, now at the University of New South Wales.
"Now, CSIRO likes to think of themselves as a 'trusted adviser' … there's an element of them being trusted to say what the government wants to hear."
Dr Church's colleague at the University of Melbourne, climate scientist David Karoly, says CSIRO management has tended to take "a risk-avoidance approach".
"They don't want to risk being perceived as providing government with advice that is inconsistent with government policy," he says.
Dr Karoly and others say this approach is fuelled by a fear of losing government funding.

Long-running difficulties
Accusations of political influence on communication of CSIRO climate research stretch back more than a decade, spanning the tenure of both Coalition and Labor governments.
In 2009, with Labor struggling to get its carbon trading legislation through the Senate, a CSIRO researcher claimed the organisation had tried to stop him publishing a paper that was critical of emissions trading.
"Managers said it was a political hot potato — too political to publish," says author of the paper Dr Clive Spash, a social scientist who was then part of CSIRO's Sustainable Ecosystems division.
Dr Spash, now chairman of public policy and governance at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, says he was harassed, became stressed, and resigned after he was refused the right to publish the paper in the journal New Political Economy, even as a private individual.
At last week's March for Science many expressed frustration that policy makers were not listening to scientists. (ABC News: Jonathan Webb)
As reported by Nature, an editor of the journal wrote to then science minister Kim Carr, accusing CSIRO of abusing the peer review process by requesting "major changes in the central arguments of the paper". Senator Carr has denied receiving that letter.
And much like Dr Church in 2015, Professor Spash says a junior co-author withdrew from this 2009 publication out of fear for their job.
"They bully and harass scientists to make scientists self-censor," Dr Spash says.
Another five years earlier, this time under the Howard government, then chief of CSIRO's climate change division Dr Graeme Pearman was reportedly forced out the door. Dr Pearman says this was because he spoke out about the need for strong CO2 reduction targets and carbon trading — a view that did not accord with Coalition policy.
"The real problem was that the message of climate change itself was being rejected," Dr Pearman says. "It was inconsistent with the worldview here in Australia. We were a resource nation, making significant incomes from the selling of coal and gas; we didn't want to see that world shaken."
In a 2006 Four Corners program on ABC TV, Dr Pearman was one of three scientists who claimed CSIRO had tried to gag them. The program linked these attempts at censorship with the political influence of the resources industry.
CSIRO's view, then as now, was that researchers should not involve themselves in policy advocacy.
When Four Corners asked CSIRO executive Dr Steve Morton about attempts to block Dr Pearman, the response was: "He's very free to talk about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that's exactly what we're encouraging our staff to do.
"When it comes to being specific about which proportion of reduction by which date, that is clearly a policy prescription and that clearly intrudes upon the role of government."

Links