02/06/2020

(UK) 'The Human Fingerprint Is Everywhere': Met Office's Alarming Warning On Climate

The Guardian

Exclusively compiled data from the Hadley Centre’s supercomputer shows alarming climate trajectory

Scientists at the Hadley Centre, which has been on the global frontline of climate monitoring, research and modelling since 1990, say their early theories have been proven by facts. Photograph: Hadley Centre

The human fingerprint on the climate is now unmistakable and will become increasingly evident over the coming decades, the UK Met Office has confirmed after 30 years of pioneering study.

Since the 1990s, global temperatures have warmed by half a degree, Arctic sea ice has shrunk by almost 2 million km2, sea-levels have risen by about 10cm and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 60 parts per million (17%), according to figures exclusively compiled for the Guardian to mark the 30th anniversary of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate science and services.

The data highlights how a young generation has grown up in a climate unprecedented in a millennium. Future projections suggest that by mid-century a 60-year-old Briton is likely to be living in a climate 1.2C warmer than when they were born.

Scientists at the Hadley Centre, which has been on the global frontline of climate monitoring, research and modelling since it opened in 1990, said early theories about fossil-fuel disruption have been proven by subsequent facts.

“The climate now is completely different from what we had 30 years ago. It is completely outside the bounds of possibility in natural variation,” said Peter Stott, a professor and expert on climate attribution science at the centre.

Margaret Thatcher, with Sir John Houghton, opening the Hadley Centre. She said the UK needed a world-leading climate centre to assess the “serious consequences” of greenhouse gas emissions. Photograph: Hadley Centre

In the Hadley Centre’s early projections, he said, scientists forecast 0.5C of warming in the UK between 1990 and 2020 as a result of emissions from oil, gas and coal: “We got it spot on.”

With new heat records being broken with increasing frequency, he said global temperatures were now above any level in the Met Office measurements since 1850, or indirectly calculated through tree rings going back thousands of years.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are also higher than anything seen in million-year-old ice cores.

“We are seeing an unprecedented climate,” Stott said. “The human fingerprint is everywhere.”

The impact was less obvious in 1990, when the centre opened in conjunction with the publication of the first report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - both were overseen by the UK scientist John Houghton, who died earlier this year.

Change in September Arctic sea ice extent
Million sq km, relative to the 1981-2010 average

Guardian graphic. Source: Met Office 2020. Observed figure for 2019 not yet available. Full source notes are included at the end of the article.

At the inauguration, the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, said the UK needed a world-leading climate centre to assess the “serious consequences” of greenhouse gas emissions. “What it predicts will affect our daily lives. Governments and international organisations in every part of the world are going to have to sit up and take notice and respond,” she said.

Thatcher, who studied science at Oxford, needed little convincing, but she had to overcome a sceptical cabinet. Atmospheric physicists had been warning oil companies and policymakers about the dangers of fossil fuels for decades, but the “greenhouse effect” was still a relatively novel concern for the broader public. Nobody felt a change. The world had already warmed by about half a degree from pre-industrial levels, but this was low enough to be within natural variation.

Few people knew the difference between short-term “weather” and the “climate”, which is usually measured over a much longer period of 30 years.

Back then, there was also considerable scepticism about the ability of meteorologists to forecast change, even on a daily basis. Memories were fresh of the BBC weatherman Michael Fish infamously reassuring viewers that fears of a hurricane were unfounded, just hours before the fiercest storm in generations hit the UK.

Change in global annual mean sea level
Centimetres difference, compared with 1981-2000 average


Guardian graphic. Source: Met Office 2020. Full source notes are included at the end of the article.

“It was unglamorous” recalls James Murphy, a science fellow who was posted to the Hadley Centre from the beginning. “But the mood in the first decade was one of great excitement, because it was a chance to do a lot of pioneering research in a growing field.”

As acceptance and importance grew, so did scepticism. Critics, often funded by oil firms, pushed back against climate science because they did not like its political and economic implications. Ahead of the climate summits in Kyoto (1997) and Copenhagen (2009), fossil fuel companies funded misinformation campaigns to cast doubt on climate models.

The Hadley Centre remained focused on science. Researchers expanded and refined their models by incorporating new knowledge on biological carbon cycles and the likely impact of fossil fuels not only on temperature, but on Arctic ice, sea-level rise, flooding, storms, droughts and other atmospheric phenomena.

Supercomputer advances enabled much greater precision. Early models mapped the impact on grid cells of 300km on each side. Today that is down to 2.2km, which allows detailed predictions of which stretches of river basins and coastlines will need the most protection.

Researchers are discovering the impacts go far beyond the initial focus on average temperature. Heat records are being set with increasing frequency. Rainfall patterns are noticeably shifting beyond natural variation. Arctic ice is shrinking faster than expected. The rising seas have already left some places, such as Fairbourne in Wales, below spring-tide levels.

Global average temperature change
Celsius change, compared with pre-industrial conditions

Guardian graphic. Source: Met Office 2020. Full source notes are included at the end of the article.

By 2050 – the year the UK plans to achieve carbon neutrality – the direct impact on Britain will be moderated by the surrounding ocean and there may be opportunities to plant new crops, but these benefits will be dwarfed by trade disruption, migration, humanitarian disasters and shifting ecosystems.

“Overall it’s bad. The negatives outweigh the positives,” said Richard Betts, a Met Office scientist who is leading scientific analysis for the next UK climate change risk assessment. “It stands to reason that if the world keeps gets hotter and hotter, sooner or later we’ll reach the point where it is first uncomfortable and then hard to function. This won’t be seen in the UK, but in parts of the world that are already hot and humid it could increasingly get too hot to function.”

The Hadley supercomputer calculates myriad possible pathways depending on how much carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere. The good news is that the worst-emissions scenario, known as RCP 8.5, is considered less likely than before because the global coal industry has not grown as feared. The bad news is current emissions trends (which lie between the RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 pathways) could take the planet to 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels by mid-century, which will increase storm damage, heatwaves, sea-level rise and the already great risk that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer.

The climate trends are based on multiple-year averages rather than year-on-year comparisons, which are more subject to natural variation.

Even the current best-case scenario – RCP 2.6, which is roughly in line with the Paris agreement – would leave the world hotter than today.

“What stands out is that even in the lowest current scenario, we get warming. We’ll need to prepare and adapt,” says Jason Lowe, the head of climate services at Hadley. He predicts extreme summer heatwaves, such as those seen in 2018, will become the norm rather than an exception.

Changes in UK temperature
Celsius, based on annual average temperature

Guardian graphic. Source: Met Office 2020. *2019 figure for observed temperature is provisional. Full source notes are included at the end of the article.

“As a scientist, I want to narrow the uncertainty so the information is as good as possible so we can plan. I think of the generations to come. I have a nine-year-old daughter. I find myself wondering which of these pathways we will be on when she is 80 or 90.”

More extreme results are possible at both ends of the spectrum. The next set of climate assessments will introduce a more ambitious best-case scenario (RCP 1.9) that would mean a faster transition to zero-carbon energy and a greater chance of holding temperature rises below 1.5C. But the situation could worsen rapidly if the climate hits tipping points, such as the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet.

“There are still dangers out there that we don’t fully understand,” said Stott. “Much of the uncertainty lies on the bad side. It could be terrifying. Can we grow enough crops to feed the population? Can we cope if some places are battered by storm after storm?”

Such concerns explain why the anniversary cannot be entirely triumphant. Despite growing evidence of climate risks, governments have been slow to act. Apart from downward blips such as the 2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus lockdown, emissions have steadily increased. The Hadley Centre’s work now is not only about predicting impacts, but preparing for them.

“Reality has proven that what we were saying 20 to 30 years ago was right. As scientists, that is vindication. But on a personal level, I hoped we would track a different emissions trajectory from where we are now,” Stott said.

“The worry is that we are now taking risks globally that we don’t fully understand ... there will be no winners of climate change if we continue. Scientific evidence has been around for a while. It is time it was taken seriously.”

Data source notes
  1. Observed September Arctic sea ice extent from HadISST.2.2.0.0 (selected as single source from Met Office climate dashboard.) Emission scenarios are the mean averages for climate scenarios SSP1-2.6 (low), SSP2-4.5 (medium-low) and SSP5-8.5 (high).
  2. Observed changes in global mean sea level (GMSL) in metres from Nasa satellite data relative to 1981-2000 average. Emissions scenarios are 50th percentile projections from UKCP18 estimates, RCP2.6 (low), RCP4.5 (medium-low), and RCP8.5 (high).
  3. Observed annual global temperature data from HadCRUT4. Emissions scenarios as above.
  4. Annual temperature for the UK based on HadUK-Grid observations. Emissions scenarios as above.
  5. All hindcast data omitted.
Links

(AU) Finally There Is Real Movement On Australia's Climate Policy But Time Isn’t On Our Side

The Guardian -

If speed weren’t a factor, we could rely on the market to incentivise green technology at its own pace – but the clock is ticking

‘Both the response to the King review and the new technology investment roadmap discussion paper provide a better basis for accelerating action than Australia has had for some years.’ Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian

Anna Skarbek is the chief executive of ClimateWorks Australia, an independent not-for-profit organisation working within the Monash Sustainable Development Institute.
“It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.”

The maxim attributed to Deng Xiaoping comes to mind in relation to the federal government’s technology investment roadmap discussion paper and its response to the King review.

If we look beyond the headlines, both interventions provide some reason for optimism.

As Frank Jotzo notes, the discussion paper acknowledges that Australia’s future lies with low-carbon energy, industry and transport. That’s a step forward – and it should be acknowledged as such.

Some have complained that, by surveying 140 technologies, the paper takes too broad a view.

Actually, the acknowledgement of a wide array of technologies for carbon abatement methods constitutes positive progress given Australia’s climate policy history.

In a report entitled Decarbonisation Futures, ClimateWorks modelled multiple pathways by which Australia might reach net zero emission by the year 2050, in accordance with the Paris climate agreement goal.

Those models show that decarbonisation won’t be the result of a single technology, but rather that different solutions (from renewable power to sustainable transport to new forms of energy efficiency) will play important roles in particular economic sectors.

Fortunately, the priority technologies identified in Decarbonisation Futures all feature in the roadmap discussion paper.

Much commentary has focused on the government allowing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support loans for carbon capture and storage.
We have entered a crucial decade in the race against climate change
In the past, that technology was associated with proposals to extend the life of coal-fired power stations. With renewables becoming far cheaper, far more quickly than expected, we now know that CCS is not competitive in the electricity supply.

But that doesn’t mean that it can’t play a role elsewhere.

The Decarbonisation Future modelling identifies CCS as necessary, not in power generation, but in harder-to-abate sectors like heavy industry, where it can help capture non-energy emissions such as fugitive methane from gas extraction and process emissions from cement. That’s a position accepted by both the International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If speed weren’t a factor, we could probably rely on the market to incentivise the uptake of green technology at its own pace. Battery costs per kilowatt hour are now 80% less expensive than in 2010; new renewables generate power more cheaply than fossil fuels, and this year the US will probably produce more electricity from renewable power than from coal for the first time.

But time isn’t on our side. We have entered a crucial decade in the race against climate change, with the UN and scientists declaring that emissions must halve in the next 10 years, and halve again in the 10 after.

That’s why the actions arising from the roadmap need to accelerate the deployment of abatement technologies, stimulating the market so widespread deployment occurs, which both brings down emissions and brings down cost.

In an interview with the ABC’s AM program, Angus Taylor, the energy and emissions reduction minister, explained that the government would “love to achieve net zero by 2050”, before adding that the target will “depend on the pathways of technologies to deliver … without damaging the economy”.

In fact, it’s precisely by setting targets that we can ensure decarbonisation and robust economic growth go hand in hand.

Research by ClimateWorks shows that incentives to use technologies matter as much as initial investment in their development, with deployment spurring improvements in price and performance.

Those incentives can take many different policy forms. Investments of the kind discussed in the government’s technology roadmap paper can foster development and commercialisation of zero-emissions emerging solutions like renewable hydrogen and green steel for harder-to-abate sectors such as heavy industry, agriculture and land.

At the same time, commitments in government procurement might, for instance, scale up the deployment of emerging technologies, as might the establishment of industry standards in particular sectors.

By setting targets immediately, decision makers (in business as well as in government), can support technology development, demonstration and deployment, and capitalise on opportunities for investment.

Innes Willox of the Ai Group is right when he says, in his responses to the King review and to the technology investment roadmap, that we still need “a clear long-term vision and strategy”.

Yet behind the government’s careful rhetoric, we can see the first substantive movement on climate policy for some time.

The recommendations accepted by Taylor aim, for instance, to give industry greater incentive to embrace new climate solutions as they emerge, something demonstrably necessary for decarbonisation to proceed on track.

Willox cautions – correctly, I believe – that the government must back its vision with “adequate funding”. But if that funding materialises, along with clear signals of longer term demand for the technologies, it could spur the kind of response that rapidly drives down costs of emissions-saving technology.

In that respect, both the response to the King review and the new technology investment roadmap discussion paper provide a better basis for accelerating action than Australia has had for some years.

With the climate clock ticking, now the focus must be on the accelerant that is applied to these foundations. We can’t afford to debate the colour of the climate cat.

It’s way past time to catch some mice.

Links

(AU) Climate Disclosure 'Box Ticking' Could Trigger Director Lawsuits: KPMG

AFRMichael Roddan

There is a "real danger" company directors are exposing themselves to litigation by taking a "box ticking" approach to disclosing climate change-related financial risks in annual reports, KPMG warns.

KPMG global head of sustainability Adrian King and Australian head of audit Eileen Hoggett, in a world-first guide to be released on Monday, said climate-related disclosures were often "siloed" in a front-loaded section of the annual report, rather than incorporated throughout financial documents relied on by shareholders and investors.

Drought-stricken countryside in western NSW ... companies have been warned to properly disclose climate-related financial risks.  Janie Barrett

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission earlier this year told parliament it would target companies providing "minimal disclosure" to the market about climate risks, and has urged business to adopt disclosures based on recommendations set by the G20 financial stability board's taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures (TCFD).

"There is real danger that climate-related risks and their impact on performance and prospects are under-disclosed in annual reports," write Mr King and Ms Hoggett in their report, which seeks to provide guidance to firms on how to fulfil expectations set by regulators on the evolving issue.

KPMG said disclosures outlining the risks faced by investors due to a changing climate, financial risks caused by a warming planet, or by regulations to cap emissions, or legal, social and reputational risks, were often being lumped into a separate "sustainability report".

Also, they were not connected to financial statement disclosures and were not consistent with disclosures being made in other company documents.

"While this may allow companies to feel they have 'ticked the climate box', this is not the approach which regulators, investors and other key stakeholders wish to see. It is not considered good practice," the report said.

"Climate risk impacts on governance, business model, strategy, risk management and performance and prospects should be made in the annual report – if material, and not hidden away in a separate sustainability report.

"Disclosure cannot be approached as a box-ticking exercise."

In rating agency sights

KPMG said companies should disclose the assumptions behind estimations of potential exposure to climate risks where there was significant uncertainty on the effects of climate change, and warned that rating agencies were also likely to probe businesses for information on climate exposure.

Last week, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority told a senate committee it would delay the introduction of new climate-focused stress tests on the local banking sector because of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, prudential regulators, global central banks and securities regulators are increasingly incorporating climate-related risks and disclosures into their regulatory toolbox.

A landmark legal opinion published by barristers Noel Hutley, SC, and Sebastian Hartford Davis, which argued boards that failed to consider climate-change risks could be found liable for breaching their duty of care and diligence, has been endorsed by Australia's financial regulators and royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne.

Recent research from investment bank Citi found Australian corporations were producing lengthy sustainability reports that had no influence on company decision-making as business chiefs were continuing to buy emissions-intensive assets ­despite flagging emissions as key business risks.

Citi analyst Zoe Whitton found more than 3000 major global companies had started to disclose climate-related risks, meaning two-thirds of companies were giving investors guidance on how climate change or the transition to a low-emissions economy could affect operations.

However, only one-third of current market disclosures were "quality".

Mr King said climate change had taken a back seat to short-term financial survival during the pandemic, but investors were still hungry for information on climate risk.

"There's no doubt regulators are coming, but regulators usually set the minimum standards to pick up the laggards," Mr King said.

"There's a real opportunity to demonstrate that you fully understand this topic, communicating the response and demystifying this topic. All anyone wants to know is do you understand the risk and how are you going to respond to it."

Links