13/05/2017

Earth Could Break Through A Major Climate Threshold In The Next 15 Years, Scientists Warn

Washington PostChelsea Harvey

(NASA via Associated Press)
Global temperatures could exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels within the next 15 years, according to a new scientific study, crossing the first threshold under the Paris climate agreement and placing the world at a potentially dangerous level of climate change.
The report comes as climate agreement participants are watching the United States — where the Trump administration is debating whether to withdraw from the Paris accord — and as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are working on a special report about the 1.5-degree goal (equivalent to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and the consequences of overshooting it.
That IPCC's upcoming special report and the increasing urgency about minimizing global warming were one impetus for the study, according to co-author Benjamin Henley, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia. "We are working on a number of scientific avenues to help inform that report," he told The Washington Post.
The study focuses on a natural planetary system known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO (it's also sometimes referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It's an alternating pattern of ocean temperatures that shifts periodically between warm and cool phases, helping to drive temperature and weather patterns all over the world.
During cool, or "negative," phases, tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean tend to be colder, and the global mean temperature is lower. The system is similar to the El Niño/La Niña cycle, the major difference being that phases of the IPO tend to last much longer — sometimes a decade or more. The phenomenon is believed to be a natural form of climate variability unrelated to human-caused climate change, although it does have the potential to influence the progression of global warming.
For most of the 2000s, the IPO has been in a negative phase, and scientists think its cooling effect has helped to slightly offset the effect of climate change, an explanation for the so-called global warming pause in the first part of the 21st century. As multiple studies have pointed out, this temporary slowdown is consistent with the overall long-term warming trend and in no way suggests that human-induced climate change is not occurring. Rather, this natural variation in the global climate helped to slightly blunt those effects.


Researchers say 2015 was the hottest year on record, and that it "smashed" the previous record, which was 2014. The Post's Chris Mooney explains what that could mean for weather patterns, the Paris climate deal and 2016. (Gillian Brockell, Chris Mooney/TWP)

Many scientists believe that the planet is now transitioning back into a positive, or warm, phase, which could amplify, rather than offset, human-caused climate warming. This means we could reach milestone temperature thresholds faster than we would if the IPO had remained in its negative phase.
That's the conclusion of the new study, written by Henley and Andrew King of the University of Melbourne. Using model projections of future climate warming under a business-as-usual scenario, they suggest that the Earth could hit the 1.5-degree temperature threshold as early as 2025, while the continuation of the negative phase probably would delay this event until after 2030.
The exact difference in timing depends on how we define the milestone itself, the researchers point out. We could say we've hit the threshold the first year the global mean temperature is 1.5 degrees warmer than it was during the preindustrial era, regardless of how the temperature fluctuates after that point. Or we could say it has happened when the mean temperature meets this point over the course of a five-year period or longer. Or, because global mean temperature tends to wiggle up and down a bit from one year to the next, we could say it's the point at which we cross the 1.5-degree threshold and never dip below it again.
The scientists explored all but the last scenario in their paper and found that the projected year for crossing the 1.5-degree threshold varied slightly among them. Generally, however, the models suggested it would occur between 2025 and 2029 (most likely around 2026) if the IPO shifts to a positive phase, and around 2031 if it stays in a negative phase. (They were not able to investigate the final scenario, they noted, because it probably will occur much further in the future and the number of IPO phases humans have observed since detailed record-keeping began is not sufficient to inform the model simulations required.)
"The paper emphasizes the way that natural climate variations, like the IPO, can interact with the progression of human-caused global warming," Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told The Washington Post. "Therefore, the timing of when we cross certain thresholds depends on the interplay between these two factors." Meehl was not involved with the new study but has previously published research on the IPO.
And the 2025 date for hitting the 1.5-degree temperature threshold is looking more and more likely. Multiple studies in the past few years suggest that the transition to a positive IPO phase has  begun. Henley said there's some uncertainty about whether that has happened, but other scientists are more confident. Scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, also of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, have published research to this effect, and both told The Post that we have been in a positive phase for several years now.
In fact, Trenberth and Fasullo suggested that the paper's conclusions have been generally known for some time. They also pointed out that the study has its limitations. Fasullo suggested that the various reasons given for the 1.5-degree temperature threshold are "deficient" for precisely the reason that they're sensitive to climate variations such as the IPO.
Trenberth said that the 1.5 degrees — as a single, concrete number — is "pretty irrelevant." He noted that "it is all of the other things going on when that stage is reached that really matter: the heat waves, wildfires, droughts, extreme rainfalls, etc."
It's also unclear, for now, how significant the difference between a positive and negative IPO really is in terms of what the planet would look like under either scenario. The timing difference for hitting the 1.5-degree target is only about five years. At the point when a positive IPO would cause us to cross the threshold, the researchers note that the global temperature under a negative IPO would probably be about 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler. Whether there would be a significant difference in the actual climate effects produced under these different mean temperatures is uncertain.
It's also possible that the business-as-usual scenario used in the study won't come to pass and that the Paris agreement will indeed drive down global emissions enough to push off 1.5 degrees for a longer period of time. (Overall, the accord lists a goal of staying "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.)
But the paper clearly indicates that the 1.5-degree target is fast approaching. In fact, according to Meehl, the paper underscores a point that many climate scientists have been warning about: that we're increasingly likely to blow past our climate goals, and soon. And with a potential U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord looming, this scenario is now more likely than ever.
"Given our rapid approach, one way or another, to the 1.5-degree threshold, the most plausible way to reach it at this point looks like we would have to overshoot and attempt to come back down to it afterward with policies that would significantly reduce emissions going forward," Meehl suggested. Some scientists have proposed technology that would actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus cooling the climate in the future, but that's a long way from being a practical solution to climate change.
"I guess the important thing is that policymakers should be aware of just how quickly we are approaching 1.5 degrees, and just realizing the urgency of reducing emissions," Henley said. "It's critical to keep pursuing the 1.5-degree goal."

Links

The 2017 Budget Has Axed Research To Help Australia Adapt To Climate Change

The ConversationTayanah O'Donnell | Josephine Mummery

Flooding on the Coomera River near Queensland’s Gold Coast. AAP Image/Ed Jackson
The 2017 federal budget has axed funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), an agency that provides information to decision-makers on how best to manage the risks of climate change and sea level rise.
The NCCARF received A$50 million in 2008 to coordinate Australia’s national research effort into climate adaptation measures. That was reduced in 2014 to just under A$9 million. For 2017-18, a mere A$600,000 will be spread between CSIRO and NCCARF to support existing online platforms only. From 2018, funding is axed entirely.
This decision follows on from the 2014 streamlining of CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship, and comes at a time when a national review of Australia’s climate policies is still underway.
Despite a growing global impetus to address the risks of climate change, there is evidence that Australia is being hampered by policy inertia. A review of 79 submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, published in 2014, found that:
adaptation first and foremost requires clear governance, and appropriate policy and legislation to implement change.
Earlier this year the World Economic Forum listed “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” as one of the top five risks to the world, in terms of its potential impact. Meanwhile, in Australia, local governments, professionals and community groups have consistently called for more national policy guidance on how best to adapt to climate risks.
The government’s decision to slash funding for climate adaptation research is therefore at odds with the growing urgency of the problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent major assessment report, pointed out that Australia can benefit significantly from taking adaptation action in highly vulnerable sectors.
These areas of vulnerability include: the risk of more frequent and intense floods; water shortages in southern regions; deaths and infrastructure damage caused by heatwaves; bushfires; and impacts on low-lying coastal communities.
To put it simply, lives and money will be saved by strong climate adaptation measures.
Australia needs a coherent policy approach that goes beyond the current focus on energy policy, although climate adaptation is indeed an important issue for our electricity grid as well as for many other elements of our infrastructure. A coherent, whole-of-government, approach to climate risk is the economical and sensible approach in the long term.
Like it or not, the federal government has to take a leading role in climate adaptation. This includes the ongoing need to address existing knowledge gaps through well-funded research.
The federal government is the major funder of leading research in Australia, delivered through CSIRO, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Cooperative Reserach Centres, the Australian Research Council and universities. This role should not be divested. Without climate adaptation research, Australia can expect significantly higher infrastructure damage and repair costs, more death and disease, and more frequent disruption to services – much of which would be avoidable with the right knowledge and preparation.
The damage bill from the 2010-11 Queensland floods alone exceeded A$6 billion. Since 2009, natural disasters have cost the Australian government more than A$12 billion, and the private sector has begun trying in earnest to reduce its risk exposure.
In response to these known risks, there is demand for robust policy guidance. Effective partnerships between government, industry and the community are crucial. One such example led by the NCCARF is CoastAdapt, an online tool that collates details of climate risks and potential costs in coastal areas.
For projects like this, success hinges on full engagement with all relevant spheres of government, industry, research, and the community. There is more to be done, and it needs leadership at the highest level.

Links

Budget 2017: No Mention, No Policy, No Idea On Climate

Independent Australia

Not a single mention. Climate change is the biggest social, moral and political issue of our time and yet Treasurer Scott Morrison didn’t utter those words once in his entire Federal Budget speech.
(Cartoon courtesy cartoonmick.wordpress.com)
Alarm bells are ringing because the Turnbull Government seems determined to continue Tony Abbott’s environmental negligence.
This is a budget that puts big polluters ahead of the community and the air, water, forest and land that sustain us. It will be every day Australians that pay the price.
In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.
buzzfeed.com
In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
Here are a few results from the ReachTEL poll, published here for the first time:

Do you agree with the following statement? 'The current Federal government has a plan to protect the reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife for the current and future generations.'
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Currently out of a budget of $445 billion the Federal Government spends just over $1 billion on protecting reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife. In the upcoming Federal Budget would you like to see the Government spend (much more, more, the same, less, much less) on protecting nature?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Would you support a proportion of company tax being spent directly on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting Australia’s reefs, rivers and forests?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Would you support a levy on polluting companies if funds were directly spent on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting reefs, rivers and forests?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Thinking about big picture solutions to the problems we have with our reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife, would you support a political party with a policy for a national plan where nature thrives?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.
Our message to Prime Minister Turnbull is pretty simple:
"The only way for you to restore your credibility on environment and climate change is to reverse environment sector cuts and develop a comprehensive national plan to protect nature and move to clean energy. There is no other solution for your leadership, or for our environment."
By choosing to prop up big polluting companies with loans and subsidies, our government is choosing not to invest in clean energy, education and creating a better future for our children and grandchildren. The government’s own State of the Environment report called for more spending on our reefs, rivers, forests and lands — not less.
Australians care about our rivers, reefs, wildlife and forests and expect governments to protect them for our children and grandchildren. They understand the value of nature in a way that the Turnbull Government doesn’t appear to do.
Polluters and big business should be made to pay for the damage they cause to the environment, not everyday Australians. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure this.

Budget 2017 and the environment:
  • No active climate change policy; no further funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund;
  • No energy transition plan;
  • No national environment protection plan;
  • No reform of the Fuel Tax Credit subsidy, which will cost Australians $6.3 billion next year and $27.1 billion to 2020;
  • No change to the aviation fuel excise concessions which subsidise the fuel of the aviation sector — will cost Australians $1.3 billion next year, $5.8 billion over the next four years;
  • The government has announced an energy package which focuses on gas and the Snowy Hydro Scheme;  
  • The government affirms its election commitment to provide a $110m of equity for a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta;
  • No further research funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility — it has been given $600,000 next year to work with CSIRO to maintain an online database of specific parts of its research. It has no funding after that;
  • The government has committed to funding Landcare till 2022-23 with total funding of $1 billion over the seven years. However, there is no new funding over the forward estimates above what has already been foreshadowed;
  • Nothing new in the budget on Indigenous Ranger programmes; and
  • $15 million for new Indigenous Protected Areas from existing environment funding
  • Despite the Finkel Review, the Government’s Climate Policy Review, the Vehicle Emissions Review and the completed National Energy Productivity Plan, there is no funding to address Australia’s growing climate pollution; and instead,
  • The Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, is planning for failure, saying it is uncertain Australia can achieve net zero climate pollution by 2050.
Where's Mr Turnbull's leadership on climate change?