09/07/2017

Hopes Of Mild Climate Change Dashed By New Research

The Guardian

Planet could heat up far more than hoped as new work shows temperature rises measured over recent decades don’t fully reflect global warming already in the pipeline
The dried up bed of the river Po in northern Italy due to an exceptional drought, 23 June 2017. Photograph: Miguel Medina/AFP/Getty Images
Hopes that the world’s huge carbon emissions might not drive temperatures up to dangerous levels have been dashed by new research.
The work shows that temperature rises measured over recent decades do not fully reflect the global warming already in the pipeline and that the ultimate heating of the planet could be even worse than feared.
How much global temperatures rise for a certain level of carbon emissions is called climate sensitivity and is seen as the single most important measure of climate change. Computer models have long indicated a high level of sensitivity, up to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
However in recent years estimates of climate sensitivity based on historical temperature records from the past century or so have suggested the response might be no more than 3C. This would mean the planet could be kept safe with lower cuts in emissions, which are easier to achieve.
But the new work, using both models and paleoclimate data from warming periods in the Earth’s past, shows that the historical temperature measurements do not reveal the slow heating of the planet’s oceans that takes place for decades or centuries after CO2 has been added to the atmosphere.
“The hope was that climate sensitivity was lower and the Earth is not going to warm as much,” said Cristian Proistosescu, at Harvard University in the US, who led the new research. “There was this wave of optimism.”
The new research, published in the journal Science Advances, has ended that. “The worrisome part is that all the models show there is an amplification of the amount of warming in the future,” he said. The situation might be even worse, as Proistosescu’s work shows climate sensitivity could be as high as 6C.
Prof Bill Collins, at the University of Reading, UK, and not part of the new research, said: “Some have suggested that we might be lucky and avoid dangerous climate change without taking determined action if the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 emissions. This work provides new evidence that that chance is remote.” He said greater long term warming had implications for melting of the world’s ice sheets and the rise of sea levels that already threatens many coastal cities.
The reason the historical temperature measurements indicated a lower climate sensitivity than models or paleoclimate data is because the Earth has a fast and a slow response to increases in carbon emissions, Proistosescu said.
Land, mostly in the northern hemisphere heats up quickly. But there is also a slow response, he said: “This is mostly associated with warming over the oceans. They are big and full of cold water, especially at depth, and take a long time to heat up.” Furthermore, when the slow warming does kick in, it is likely to reduce the cloud cover that shades the Southern ocean and the eastern tropical Pacific, amplifying the heating.
The new research shows the 4.5C upper limit for climate sensitivity is real and means projections for global temperature rises cannot be reduced. The global temperature is likely to be 2.6C to 4.8C higher by the end of the century if emissions are not cut, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or 0.3C to 1.7C if sharp emissions cuts begin in the next few years.
The world may already be seeing the increasing rises in temperature, said Prof Piers Forster at the University of Leeds, UK: “It may already be happening – the rapid increase in temperatures since 2014 could be partly due to the eastern Pacific catching up.”
Reconciling all the estimates of climate sensitivity has also shown that climate models are not flawed. “Historical observations give us a lot of insight into how climate changes and are an important test of our climate models,” said Prof Peter Huybers, a colleague of Proistosescu’s at Harvard University. “But there is no perfect analogue for the changes that are coming.”

Links

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Up, Data Released After FOI Struggle Reveal

Fairfax - Lucy Cormack

The federal government has answered calls to release greenhouse gas pollution data it had been sitting on since last year.
Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg released the quarterly updates on Friday, less than 24 hours after a Fairfax Media exclusive revealed documents confirming the department had failed to release data for the two quarters leading up to the end of 2016.


Greenhouse gases: not just a bunch of hot air
From tracing the exact source of CO2 in our atmosphere to measuring the earth's "carbon budget", the scientists studying climate change know a lot more about the greenhouse effect than you might think.

On Friday, Mr Frydenberg announced Australia's greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 0.4 per cent in the September quarter and by 0.3 per cent in the December quarter of last year.
"Interestingly, electricity sector emissions fell by 1.3 per cent over the December quarter and fell 0.6 per cent in the September quarter as a result of the use of more hydro and less brown coal," Mr Frydenberg said.
"The government has adopted new, more effective, methodologies which improve the way satellite data is used to estimate land sector emissions and to incorporate the latest CSIRO research."
He said Australia was on track to "meet and beat" the second Kyoto 2020 target by 224 million tonnes.
The whereabouts of last year's pollution data was confirmed by documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Australian Conservation Foundation, extracts of which were published by Fairfax Media on Thursday.
Despite being heavily redacted, a report and departmental correspondence confirmed advice that the data would be released "from March 31", with a release date indicated for "late on Friday 26 May". But that did not happen.
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions increased by 0.4 per cent in the September quarter and by 0.3 per cent in the December quarter of last year. Photo: Getty Images
"The government has been embarrassed into releasing this data, which shows pollution levels are still rising at a time they need to be drastically falling," ACF chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said.
"It should not take an FOI request and a front-page story to get the government to be honest with the Australian people."
Federal Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg announced the release of the pollution data on Friday morning. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
In the absence of the government's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, consultant Ndevr Environmental conducted independent estimates, which suggested Australia's emissions had risen sharply since the last quarterly data set was released last year.
However, on Friday, Ndevr said its own estimates for the September and December quarters had in fact been "a little conservative".
An extract from a departmental document obtained through an FOI request, regarding the release date of government pollution data. Photo: Supplied
"We're interested that our projections were a little bit under the government's," Ndevr managing director Matt Drum said.
Ndevr would need to make adjustments to account for the government's methodology changes, he added.
"We also picked up the decrease in electricity emissions in the December quarter, which was due to a massive amount of renewable energy generation. The results from the March quarter of this year will be very interesting, because we have estimated a big spike ... it was a shocker."
For the September and December quarter, Ndevr's estimates were 98.3 and 97.5 per cent accurate, respectively, when compared with the data released on Friday.
Ms O'Shanassy said it was positive to see electricity emissions declining, but it remained "difficult to tell if that would continue" with ongoing investment in coal.
"They talk about us meeting our Paris targets, but that is only because they have been able to bank pollution savings from past years under previous Kyoto agreements.
"That's why you can still have growing emissions and say you will still meet Paris targets."
According to the government's pollution data, last year electricity emissions decreased by 0.3 per cent, emissions from fuels in the manufacturing, mining and commercial sectors increased by 4.6 per cent, and emissions from the production and transmission of fossil fuels increased by 6 per cent.
Greens climate change and energy spokesperson Adam Bandt said the figures painted a "grim picture".
"Gas isn't a clean transition fuel. It's pushing pollution up and, if the figures keep rising like this, catastrophic global warming is a near certainty," he said.

Links

The Great Barrier Reef Isn’t Listed As ‘In Danger’ – But It’s Still In Big Trouble

The ConversationJames Watson | Martine Maron

The Great Barrier Reef is reeling under a combination of bleaching, over-fishing and land clearing. AP Image/Bette Willis
In a somewhat surprising decision, UNESCO ruled this week that the Great Barrier Reef – one of the Earth’s great natural wonders – should not be listed as “World Heritage in Danger”.
The World Heritage Committee praised the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, and the federal minister for the environment, Josh Frydenberg, has called the outcome “a big win for Australia and a big win for the Turnbull government”.
But that doesn’t mean the Reef is out of danger. Afforded World Heritage recognition in 1981, the Reef has been on the warning list for nearly three years. It’s not entirely evident why UNESCO decided not to list the Reef as “in danger” at this year’s meeting, given the many ongoing threats to its health.
However, the World Heritage Committee has made it clear they remain concerned about the future of this remarkable world heritage site.

The reef is still in deep trouble
UNESCO’s draft decision (the adopted version is not yet releasesd) cites significant and ongoing threats to the Reef, and emphasises that much more work is needed to get the health of the Reef back on track. Australia must provide a progress report on the Reef in two years’ time – and they want to see our efforts to protect the reef accelerate.
Right now, unprecedented coral bleaching in consecutive years has damaged two-thirds of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. This bleaching, or loss of algae, affects a 1,500km stretch of the reef. The latest damage is concentrated in the middle section, whereas last year’s bleaching hit mainly the north.
Pollution, overfishing and sedimentation are exacerbating the damage. Land clearing in Queensland has accelerated rapidly in the past few years, with about 1 million hectares of native vegetation being cleared in the past five years. That’s an area the size of the Brisbane Cricket Ground being cleared every three minutes.
About 40% of this vegetation clearing is in catchments that drain to the Great Barrier Reef. Land clearing contributes to gully and streambank erosion. This erosion means that soil (and whatever chemical residues are in it) washes into waterways and flows into reef lagoon, reducing water quality and affecting the health of corals and seagrass.
Landclearing also directly contributes to climate change, which is the single biggest threat to the Reef. The recent surge in land clearing in Queensland alone poses a threat to Australia’s ability to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target. Yet attempts by the Queensland Government to control excessive land clearing have failed – a concern highlighted by UNESCO in the draft decision.
Land clearing can lead to serious hillslope gully and sheet erosion, which causes sedimentation and reduced water quality in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Willem van Aken/CSIRO
A time for action, not celebration
The Reef remains on UNESCO’s watch list. Just last month the World Heritage Committee released a report concluding that progress towards achieving water quality targets had been slow, and that it does not expect the immediate water quality targets to be met.
The draft decision still expressed UNESCO’s “serious concern” and “strongly encouraged” Australia to “accelerate efforts to ensure meeting the intermediate and long-term targets of the plan, which are essential to the overall resilience of the property, in particular regarding water quality”.
This means reducing run-off of sediment, nutrients and pollutants from our towns and farmlands. Improving water quality can help recovery of corals, even if it doesn’t prevent mortality during extreme heatwaves.
The Great Barrier Reef is the most biodiverse of all the World Heritage sites, and of “enormous scientific and intrinsic importance” according to the United Nations. A recent report by Deloitte put its value at A$56bn. It contributes an estimated A$6.4bn annually to Australia’s economy and supports 64,000 jobs.
Excessive landclearing in Queensland, which looks like being a core issue in the next state election, has been successfully curbed in the past, and it could be again.
But the reef cannot exist in the long term without international efforts to curb global warming. To address climate change and reduce emissions, we need to act both nationally and globally. Local action on water quality (the focus of the Reef 2050 Plan) does not prevent bleaching, or “buy time” to delay action on emissions.
We need adequate funding for achieving the Reef 2050 Plan targets for improved water quality, and a plan to reach zero net carbon emissions. Without that action, an “in danger” listing seems inevitable in 2020. But regardless of lists and labels, the evidence is clear. The Great Barrier Reef is dying before our eyes. Unless we do more, and fast, we risk losing it forever.

Links