25/11/2017

Ice Apocalypse

Grist

Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century.


In a remote region of Antarctica known as Pine Island Bay, 2,500 miles from the tip of South America, two glaciers hold human civilization hostage.
Stretching across a frozen plain more than 150 miles long, these glaciers, named Pine Island and Thwaites, have marched steadily for millennia toward the Amundsen Sea, part of the vast Southern Ocean. Further inland, the glaciers widen into a two-mile-thick reserve of ice covering an area the size of Texas.
There’s no doubt this ice will melt as the world warms. The vital question is when.
The glaciers of Pine Island Bay are two of the largest and fastest-melting in Antarctica. (A Rolling Stone feature earlier this year dubbed Thwaites “The Doomsday Glacier.”) Together, they act as a plug holding back enough ice to pour 11 feet of sea-level rise into the world’s oceans — an amount that would submerge every coastal city on the planet. For that reason, finding out how fast these glaciers will collapse is one of the most important scientific questions in the world today.
To figure that out, scientists have been looking back to the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, when global temperatures stood at roughly their current levels. The bad news? There’s growing evidence that the Pine Island Bay glaciers collapsed rapidly back then, flooding the world’s coastlines — partially the result of something called “marine ice-cliff instability.”
The ocean floor gets deeper toward the center of this part of Antarctica, so each new iceberg that breaks away exposes taller and taller cliffs. Ice gets so heavy that these taller cliffs can’t support their own weight. Once they start to crumble, the destruction would be unstoppable.
“Ice is only so strong, so it will collapse if these cliffs reach a certain height,” explains Kristin Poinar, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “We need to know how fast it’s going to happen.”
In the past few years, scientists have identified marine ice-cliff instability as a feedback loop that could kickstart the disintegration of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet this century — much more quickly than previously thought.
Minute-by-minute, huge skyscraper-sized shards of ice cliffs would crumble into the sea, as tall as the Statue of Liberty and as deep underwater as the height of the Empire State Building. The result: a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never seen.
Thwaites Glacier. Jeremy Harbeck
Ice comes in many forms, with different consequences when it melts. Floating ice, like the kind that covers the Arctic Ocean in wintertime and comprises ice shelves, doesn’t raise sea levels. (Think of a melting ice cube, which won’t cause a drink to spill over.)
Land-based ice, on the other hand, is much more troublesome. When it falls into the ocean, it adds to the overall volume of liquid in the seas. Thus, sea-level rise.
Antarctica is a giant landmass — about half the size of Africa — and the ice that covers it averages more than a mile thick. Before human burning of fossil fuels triggered global warming, the continent’s ice was in relative balance: The snows in the interior of the continent roughly matched the icebergs that broke away from glaciers at its edges.
Now, as carbon dioxide traps more heat in the atmosphere and warms the planet, the scales have tipped.
A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
All this could play out in a mere 20 to 50 years — much too quickly for humanity to adapt.
“With marine ice cliff instability, sea-level rise for the next century is potentially much larger than we thought it might be five or 10 years ago,” Poinar says.
A lot of this newfound concern is driven by the research of two climatologists: Rob DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and David Pollard at Penn State University. A study they published last year was the first to incorporate the latest understanding of marine ice-cliff instability into a continent-scale model of Antarctica.
Their results drove estimates for how high the seas could rise this century sharply higher. “Antarctic model raises prospect of unstoppable ice collapse,” read the headline in the scientific journal Nature, a publication not known for hyperbole.
Instead of a three-foot increase in ocean levels by the end of the century, six feet was more likely, according to DeConto and Pollard’s findings. But if carbon emissions continue to track on something resembling a worst-case scenario, the full 11 feet of ice locked in West Antarctica might be freed up, their study showed.
Pine Island Glacier shelf edge. Jeremy Harbeck
Three feet of sea-level rise would be bad, leading to more frequent flooding of U.S. cities such as New Orleans, Houston, New York, and Miami. Pacific Island nations, like the Marshall Islands, would lose most of their territory. Unfortunately, it now seems like three feet is possible only under the rosiest of scenarios.
At six feet, though, around 12 million people in the United States would be displaced, and the world’s most vulnerable megacities, like Shanghai, Mumbai, and Ho Chi Minh City, could be wiped off the map.
At 11 feet, land currently inhabited by hundreds of millions of people worldwide would wind up underwater. South Florida would be largely uninhabitable; floods on the scale of Hurricane Sandy would strike twice a month in New York and New Jersey, as the tug of the moon alone would be enough to send tidewaters into homes and buildings.
DeConto and Pollard’s breakthrough came from trying to match observations of ancient sea levels at shorelines around the world with current ice sheet behavior.
Around 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were about as warm as they’re expected to be later this century, oceans were dozens of feet higher than today.
Previous models suggested that it would take hundreds or thousands of years for sea-level rise of that magnitude to occur. But once they accounted for marine ice-cliff instability, DeConto and Pollard’s model pointed toward a catastrophe if the world maintains a “business as usual” path — meaning we don’t dramatically reduce carbon emissions.
Rapid cuts in greenhouse gases, however, showed Antarctica remaining almost completely intact for hundreds of years.
Pollard and DeConto are the first to admit that their model is still crude, but its results have pushed the entire scientific community into emergency mode.
“It could happen faster or slower, I don’t think we really know yet,” says Jeremy Bassis, a leading ice sheet scientist at the University of Michigan. “But it’s within the realm of possibility, and that’s kind of a scary thing.”
Scientists used to think that ice sheets could take millennia to respond to changing climates. These are, after all, mile-thick chunks of ice.
The new evidence, though, says that once a certain temperature threshold is reached, ice shelves of glaciers that extend into the sea, like those near Pine Island Bay, will begin to melt from both above and below, weakening their structure and hastening their demise, and paving the way for ice-cliff instability to kick in.
In a new study out last month in the journal Nature, a team of scientists from Cambridge and Sweden point to evidence from thousands of scratches left by ancient icebergs on the ocean floor, indicating that Pine Island’s glaciers shattered in a relatively short amount of time at the end of the last ice age.
The only place in the world where you can see ice-cliff instability in action today is at Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, one of the fastest-collapsing glaciers in the world. DeConto says that to construct their model, they took the collapse rate of Jakobshavn, cut it in half to be extra conservative, then applied it to Thwaites and Pine Island.
But there’s reason to think Thwaites and Pine Island could go even faster than Jakobshavn.
Right now, there’s a floating ice shelf protecting the two glaciers, helping to hold back the flow of ice into the sea. But recent examples from other regions, like the rapidly collapsing Larsen B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula, show that once ice shelves break apart as a result of warming, their parent glaciers start to flow faster toward the sea, an effect that can weaken the stability of ice further inland, too.
“If you remove the ice shelf, there’s a potential that not just ice-cliff instabilities will start occurring, but a process called marine ice-sheet instabilities,” says Matthew Wise, a polar scientist at the University of Cambridge.
This signals the possible rapid destabilization of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet in this century. “Once the stresses exceed the strength of the ice,” Wise says, “it just falls off.”
And, it’s not just Pine Island Bay. On our current course, other glaciers around Antarctica will be similarly vulnerable. And then there’s Greenland, which could contribute as much as 20 feet of sea-level rise if it melts.
Next to a meteor strike, rapid sea-level rise from collapsing ice cliffs is one of the quickest ways our world can remake itself. This is about as fast as climate change gets.
Still, some scientists aren’t fully convinced the alarm is warranted. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, says the new research by Wise and his colleagues, which identified ice-cliff instabilities in Pine Island Bay 11,000 years ago, is “tantalizing evidence.” But he says that research doesn’t establish how quickly it happened.
“There’s a whole lot more to understand if we’re going to use this mechanism to predict how far Thwaites glacier and the other glaciers are going to retreat,” he says. “The question boils down to, what are the brakes on this process?”
Scambos thinks it is unlikely that Thwaites or Pine Island would collapse all at once. For one thing, if rapid collapse did happen, it would produce a pile of icebergs that could act like a temporary ice shelf, slowing down the rate of retreat.
Despite the differences of opinion, however, there’s growing agreement within the scientific community that we need to do much more to determine the risk of rapid sea-level rise. In 2015, the U.S. and U.K. governments began to plan a rare and urgent joint research program to study Thwaites glacier. Called “How much, how fast?,” the effort is set to begin early next year and run for five years.
Seeing the two governments pooling their resources is “really a sign of the importance of research like this,” NASA’s Poinar says.
Given what’s at stake, the research program at Thwaites isn’t enough, but it might be the most researchers can get. “Realistically, it’s probably all that can be done in the next five years in the current funding environment,” says Pollard.
He’s referring, of course, to the Trump administration’s disregard for science and adequate scientific funding; the White House’s 2018 budget proposal includes the first-ever cut to the National Science Foundation, which typically funds research in Antarctica.
“It would be sensible to put a huge effort into this, from my perspective,” Pollard says. Structural engineers need to study Antarctica’s key glaciers as though they were analyzing a building, he says, probing for weak spots and understanding how exactly they might fail. “If you vastly increase the research now, [the cost] would still be trivial compared to the losses that might happen.”
Pine Island Glacier calving front. NASA ICE
Bassis, the ice sheet scientist at the University of Michigan, first described the theoretical process of marine ice-cliff instability in research published only a few years ago.
He’s 40 years old, but his field has already changed enormously over the course of his career. In 2002, when Bassis was conducting his PhD research in a different region of Antarctica, he was shocked to return to his base camp and learn that the Larsen B ice shelf had vanished practically overnight.
“Every revision to our understanding has said that ice sheets can change faster than we thought,” he says. “We didn’t predict that Pine Island was going to retreat, we didn’t predict that Larsen B was going to disintegrate. We tend to look at these things after they’ve happened.”
There’s a recurring theme throughout these scientists’ findings in Antarctica: What we do now will determine how quickly Pine Island and Thwaites collapse. A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries. That’s a decision worth countless trillions of dollars and millions of lives.
“The range of outcomes,” Bassis says, “is really going to depend on choices that people make.”

Links

Josh Frydenberg To Seek NEG Nod By April, Final Design Settled By End Of 2018

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Josh Frydenberg, the federal environment and energy minister, will appeal to state and territory counterparts to support the government's National Energy Guarantee by next April so that necessary legislation and rule changes can be made by the end of next year.
According to the agenda of Friday's COAG Energy Council meeting, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Frydenberg has dropped his earlier intention to ask for in-principle support for the NEG at the Hobart gathering.


Chief Scientist calls for greater battery storage
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel says power bills will go up and energy supply will be less reliable unless Australia develops better storage systems.

Instead, he will seek approval from ministers for the Energy Security Board to undertake more analysis of the plan aimed at "guaranteeing" a reduction in carbon emissions from the electricity sector while bolstering its reliability.
The reliability component should be implemented by "no later than 2019" and the emissions element by the following year.
Mr Frydenberg will propose a timetable that includes the ESB releasing a design paper by February. It will then hold a public forum later that month, and would take written submissions until mid-March, the agenda paper shows.
The Energy Council ministers would then meet in April to approve "the policy approach". Final design would proceed with the aim to have all necessary rule changes and new legislation passed by the end of 2018.
One senior official due to attend Friday's meeting said the ambition of the gathering had been scaled back after fierce objections from several states. "Essentially, we'll agree to keep talking," the official said.
By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy.
Various states have raised issues with the NEG, not least its weak ambition.
Emissions ambitions will have a big impact on the likely energy mix in Australia. Photo: Carla Gottgens
By setting a goal of reducing emissions from the electricity sector only in line with Australia's Paris commitment - cutting 2005 levels by 26-28 per cent by 2030 - the Turnbull government will have to find more costly reductions elsewhere in the economy, analysts have said.
States and territories are also wary that the NEG will limit their own renewable energy targets, which are already legislated in some regions.
Victorian dairy farmer Lindsay Anderson, also an exporter of solar power back to the grid. Photo: Paul Jeffers
'Decimate'
The leak of the Hobart agenda comes as the NEG was assessed by respected industry analysis group, Bloomberg New Energy Finance as likely to "decimate" new investment in large-scale renewable energy because of its weak proposed emissions reduction goal for 2030.
Labor's plan to cut national emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels, by contrast, would extend the current boom in the industry, BNEF said.
Renewable energy would see little large-scale investment under the NEG, Bloomberg NEF says. Photo: Supplied
The consultancy said the government's setting for the NEG would result in just 1.5 gigawatts of new wind and solar farms being built in the 2021-30 decade.
Rooftop solar photovoltaics, though, would continue to grow, adding 12 GW of new capacity. New gas-fired power of some 4.9 GW would make up for most of the 6 GW of aging coal plants expected to close.
"The [NEG] mechanism looks like it could be very effective, but if the target is weak, it will deliver little," Kobad Bhavnagri, BNEF's head of Australia, said.
"It would be like finally having the gumption to join the gym, but then not lifting any weights when you get there."
By contrast, Labor's emissions pledge if applied to the electricity sector would trigger construction of 17.3 GW of large-scale renewable energy during the decade after 2021, BNEF's modelling showed.
The electricity sector is widely considered to be among the industries that should lead emissions abatement mostly because low- or zero-carbon technology substitutes are already available and relatively competitive.
Labor's 45 per cent overall emissions reduction target, for instance, "would continue the current pace of reductions from existing policies", BNEF said. (See Bloomberg chart below.)


'More affordable'
State and territory energy ministers, particularly from Labor-run regions, are likely to challenge Mr Frydenberg over the ambition and impact of the proposed NEG that will require their approval to proceed.
Friday's meeting is unlikely to produce much progress not least because Queensland will be represented by an official ahead of the state's elections on the following day.
Mr Frydenberg told Fairfax Media the NEG would deliver "more affordable and reliable energy as we transition to a lower emissions future", including more renewable energy.
"Labor's plan of a 45 per cent emissions target will drive up energy prices and lead to a less reliable system," he said.
Mark Butler, Labor's climate spokesman, said BNEF's analysis "confirms that the Turnbull government's NEG will strangle renewable energy", and backed the ALP's plan.
"Under the government's NEG modelling, the renewable energy mix is only expected to reach 36 per cent by 2030," he said. "This translates to only a 0.5 per cent increase in renewables above already committed investment every year over the 2020s - or little more than 250 MW per year over the decade."

'Secretly developed'
Leading environmental groups, meanwhile, called for a revision of the NEG to aim for a higher target, stating that in its current form, more carbon pollution and less clean energy will be produced by the power industry than if the Turnbull government did nothing.
The groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation and Solar Citizens, met South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill - one of the most outspoken critics of the NEG - on Thursday.
"The NEG has been hastily and secretly developed without the input of state and territory ministers to appease Malcolm Turnbull's climate-denying right flank," Paul Oosting, GetUp's national director, said.
"It fails to deliver serious action to reduce climate pollution in Australia's energy sector."

Questions remain
Along with the emissions "guarantee", the NEG is also intended to bolster reliability of the electricity sector to cope with aging plant and also the integration of more intermittent electricity supplies.
Bloomberg noted key aspects of the reliability guarantee remain unclear, such as whether so-called synchronous generation will be specifically required of electricity retailers, or whether contracts would be based on rated capacity or actual generation.
Alan Pears, an energy expert at RMIT University, said the government's modelling suggests a major cutback in the ambitions being set by the states and territories.
Victoria, for instance, would build only 742 megawatts of new renewable energy under the modelling presented compared with 650 MW it has already issued bids for.
"This would make Victoria much more dependent on interstate supply and I suspect that would not be politically acceptable," Mr Pears said.

Links

Should A Healthy Environment Be A Human Right? These Norwegians Think So

ABC triplej HACK - Courtney Carthy


Greenpeace and the environmental group Youth and Nature are suing the Norwegian Government for granting Arctic oil drilling licenses.
Their argument is based on an article in the Norwegian constitution protecting the right to an environment that’s healthy and that long-term consideration be given to digging up natural resources.
Greenpeace Norway head Truls Gulowsen told Hack it all comes down to climate change and oil licenses.
"We had challenged the Norwegian state for handing out new licenses for drilling in the arctic in spite of the fact that they have signed the Paris Agreement," he said on his way to court.
"They acknowledge climate change is a problem, and they know that the world has already found more carbon, fossil carbon, than we can ever afford to burn."
He said Norway's constitution gives future generations the right to a healthy environment.
"[That] puts duties on the state to guarantee and safeguard those rights."
Brendan Sydes, lawyer and CEO of Environmental Justice Australia, says the strategy used by Greenpeace goes to a country’s legal foundation, instead of working with a country's environmental regulations.
"They’re looking for rights there in the constitution that form really hard limits on what governments ... can do."
Polar bear on pack ice. Getty
A win for environmental groups against the Norwegian Government could be groundbreaking.
It would mean bypassing politicians in the fight against climate change.
Truls Gulowsen says lots of countries other than Norway have legislation that give future generations the right to a healthy environment.
Environmental groups can then attempt to prove to a court that a country's carbon reduction policies are inadequate for preventing future climate change.
"[They can] get courts to save the climate."
Standing on icebreaker ship in the Arctic. Getty
An Australian right to a healthy environment?
Our Constitution doesn't contain an explicit paragraph for environmental protection, nor do we have a bill of rights.
Brendan Sydes said we have very few rights in our Constitution.
"We don't have the direct constitutional foundation for pursuing these sorts of actions," he said.
"But there certainly is interest in ... trying to find duties or obligations deep within our legal system that would force the Australian Government to take climate change and the need to reduce emissions farm more seriously than they are at the moment.
Dr Tom Baxter, corporate governance lecturer at the University of Tasmania, says the Federal Government hasn't added a climate change trigger to Australia's environment legislation.
"Environmental lawyers are trying to use other mechanisms to prevent companies like Adani digging up the Galilee Basin and shipping coal out through the Great Barrier Reef."
A Stop Adani sign formed by people on Bondi Beach. Twitter: @stopadani
Court cases become more common
The case against the Norwegian Government is one of an increasing number of legal, rather than political, avenues environmental groups are using to stop mining, drilling and environmental degradation.
In 2016 a group of students began suing the US Government over environmental neglect, claiming the Government is failing to protect their future from the impacts of climate change.
The 21 students argued their right to "life, liberty and property" was being violated.
Oral arguments will be heard in the case in early December.
In 2015, the Dutch citizens took their government to court, arguing that the country’s emissions targets weren’t going to protect them from climate change.
They won and as a result the Dutch Government was forced to increase its emissions reductions targets.
Dr Baxter says the Norwegian case has sparked similar cases in other countries.
"Depending on how this Norwegian case goes, US lawyers and other European nations will study it carefully and apply it in their own context."
Brendan says there is a hope and desire to get environmental matters before the court.
"I guess there's some hope that courts are able to close that gap between the rhetoric ... and the reality, basically saying you can't say one thing and do another."
Truls from Greenpeace Norway says if Australian environmental activists can find opportunities to use legal means, it’s worth a shot.
"I think absolutely you should look into the opportunities that courts provide because that's a very good discussion for a less political debate where facts matter more and when fact matters environmental campaigns win."

If the case fails?
Norway's court is expected to hand down its decision in the landmark case in February.
If the court finds against Greenpeace and Youth and Nature, Truls says they will keep pushing other avenues.
"If we're not successful the situation will be as it has been for a while. New oil licensing is legal, which is a sad situation to be in."
"There might be opportunities for appeal to a higher court, and of course we always have the abilities to continue protests, demonstration, information and working with politicians."

Links