28/01/2017

Doomsday Clock Ticks Closest To Midnight In 64 Years Due To Climate Change, Nuclear Fears, Donald Trump Election

ABC News - Reuters

The clock was last set this close to midnight in 1953. (Reuters: Jim Bourg)
Scientists have reset their symbolic Doomsday Clock to its closest time to midnight in 64 years, saying the world is closer to catastrophe due to threats such as nuclear weapons, climate change and Donald Trump's election as US President.
Key points:
  • The Doomsday Clock's hands have been moved to two minutes and 30 seconds from midnight
  • The symbolic clock has not been as close to midnight since 1953
  • Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss says Trump, Putin largely responsible for shift
The timepiece, devised by the Chicago-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and displayed on its website, is widely viewed as an indicator of the world's vulnerability to disaster.
Its hands were moved to two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight, from three minutes.
"The Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than it's ever been in the lifetime of almost everyone in this room," Lawrence Krauss, the bulletin's chair, told a news conference in Washington.
The clock was last set this close to midnight in 1953, marking the start of the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Thursday's reset was the first since 2015.

Trump and Putin largely responsible for shift
Professor Krauss, a theoretical physicist, said Mr Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin carried a large share of the blame for the heightened threat.
The bulletin cited nuclear volatility, especially as the United States and Russia seek to modernise their atomic arsenals and remain at odds in war-torn countries such as Syria and Ukraine.
Scientists said Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin carried a large share of the blame for the heightened threat. (Reuters: Kremlin)
Mr Trump has suggested South Korea and Japan could acquire nuclear weapons to compete with North Korea, which has conducted nuclear tests.
Mr Trump has also raised doubts about the future of a multilateral nuclear pact with Iran.
Chinese aid to Pakistan in the nuclear weapons field, as well as the expansion of India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, were also worrisome, the bulletin said in a statement.
The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal, "but only somewhat."
While nations had taken actions to combat climate change, the bulletin noted, there appeared to be little appetite for additional cuts to carbon dioxide emissions.
It said the Trump administration nominees raised the possibility the government will be "openly hostile to progress toward even the most modest efforts to avert catastrophic climate disruption."
The world also faces cyber threats, the bulletin said. US intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia intervened in the presidential election to help Mr Trump raised the possibility of similar attacks on other democracies, it said.
The bulletin was founded by scientists who helped develop the United States' first atomic weapons. Its Science and Security Board decides on the clock's hands in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes Nobel laureates.

Links

Australia's Coal Power Plan Twice As Costly As Renewables Route, Report Finds

The Guardian

Researcher says new coal plants aimed at reducing emissions would cost $62b, while the cost using renewables would be $24-$34bn
Resources minister Matthew Canavan and energy and environment minister Josh Frydenberg want new coal power plants to be built in Australia. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters
A plan for new coal power plants, which government ministers say could reduce emissions from coal-generated electricity by 27%, would cost more than $60bn, a new analysis has found.
Achieving the same reduction using only renewable energy would cost just half as much – between $24bn and $34bn – the report found.
The resources minister, Matthew Canavan, and the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, have been arguing for new coal power plants to be built in Australia.
Last week, Canavan released analysis he commissioned from the industry department, which found replacing all Australia's coal power stations with the latest "ultra super-critical" coal-fired power stations would reduce emissions in that sector by 27%.
Frydenberg has also raised the conclusions in interviews, and promoted the benefits of coal power.
Neither has responded to questions about the cost of reducing coal-fired power emissions by 27% using the latest technology.
So Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College at the University of Melbourne crunched the numbers, and found that the 27% reduction in the coal sector could be achieved, but it would cost $62bn.
McConnell said at a conservative estimate, achieving the reduction would require 20GW of new capacity. According to the latest estimates from the CSIRO, new ultra super-critical black coal costs $3,100 per kW to build.
"No wonder no one wants to talk about the costs," McConnell said.
He said $62bn would be enough to build between 35GW and 39GW of wind and solar energy. Because that would produce less electricity than 20GW of coal power, it would not completely replace coal power, but it would reduce its emissions by up to 65%.
And that would amount to an emissions reduction of between 50% and 60% in the electricity sector as a whole.
McConnell found that if the 27% reduction in emissions from the coal generation sector were to be achieved with renewables, rather than with new coal, about 13-19GW of renewable energy would be needed, which would cost between $24bn and $34bn.
He said the scenario proposed by Canavan and Frydenberg would end up with 20GW of highly polluting coal power stations that were unlikely to be retired for decades.
On the other hand, McConnell said, if that money were spent on renewables, it would leave some coal and gas in place, which ultimately would still need to be removed to meet long-term emissions reduction targets.
Neither Canavan nor Frydenberg responded to questions about the costs of building new coal power stations. In a statement, Frydenberg said only that the government was committed to a "technology neutral" approach to meeting emissions targets.
"Arbitrarily excluding certain technologies for ideological reasons will lead to higher cost outcomes," the statement said.
The Opposition spokesman for climate change and energy, Mark Butler, said: "This analysis clearly shows the government is off on an economically and environmentally irresponsible frolic with their trumpeting of 'clean coal'.
"As the Australian Industry Group and many others have made clear, replacing our existing coal power with more coal power just doesn't stack up; either on environmental or economic grounds.
"This is just the latest effort of a weak government to appease its irrational extreme right wing and distract from the fact they're simply incapable of delivering real policy solutions to our significant energy challenges," Butler said.
McConnell pointed out that the latest coal-powered fire stations were not at all "clean". They produced about 700 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt hour of electricity – much more than the 400 grams from new combined cycle gas turbines, and much more than the average produced by OECD countries, 420 grams per kilowatt hour in 2014, according to the International Energy Agency.
OECD countries will need to reduce that figure to just 15 grams per kilowatt hour if the world is to keep global temperature increases below 2C, the agency has said.

Links

Sea Level Rise Estimate Grows Alarmingly Higher In Latest Federal Report

InsideClimate NewsNicholas Kusnetz

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) latest report arrives, predicting worst-case scenario of 8 feet of rise by century's end, just as Donald Trump takes office with pro-fossil fuel policies.
Places like Robbins, Md., already struggling with sea level rise, could see even more flooding under new federal projections. Credit: Getty Images
New federal estimates say global sea levels could rise faster than previously thought, and the rise may be even worse in many coastal regions of the United States.
A new report, written by scientists with several federal agencies and universities, says that under a worst-case scenario, climate change could raise the oceans an average of more than 8 feet by 2100, about 20 inches more than a previous federal estimate published in 2012.
The best case now projected would be an average of about a foot.
The report was delivered just as President Donald Trump took office, immediately working to undo President Barack Obama's climate policies.
On his inauguration day, pages mentioning climate change on whitehouse.gov were removed.
Trump has promised policies to increase fossil fuel development in the U.S., and to undo Obama's major emissions-cutting initiative, the Clean Power Plan.
Sea level rise will likely be worse in some regions of the U.S. because of ocean currents, wind patterns and settling sediments.
The authors examined six scenarios with a range of probabilities in an effort to help state and local governments plan for sea level rise.
 Under all of them, the Northeast should expect higher waters than much of the rest of the globe. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska would likely experience lower-than-average increases under the best-case scenarios.
"The ocean's not flat," said William V. Sweet, one of the authors and a scientist at NOAA. "It's not going to rise like water in a bathtub."
The six scenarios are based on United Nations models of future greenhouse gas emissions, depending on whether countries rapidly slash pollution or continue burning fossil fuels as usual.
The authors determined that the worst-case rise of more than 8 feet has only a 0.1 percent chance of occurring by 2100, even under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, but a rise of more than 1.5 feet is near certain with high emissions.
The increase in the estimates for global sea rise was partly due to new research on the Antarctic ice sheet, which is melting faster and appears to be more fragile than previously estimated, suggesting that some of the more pessimistic scenarios are increasingly likely.
The report also warned that moderate coastal flooding will become 25 times more likely with a 14-inch rise in the seas. That level could come anytime from 2030 to 2080 for most coastal cities, depending on their location and the world's emissions. It would mean that a flood that now comes once every five years would be expected five times a year.
Sea levels have already risen by more than 8 inches globally since 1880, with 3 inches coming since 1993.
Tidal flooding "has increased by an order of magnitude over the past several decades," the report says, "turning it from a rare event into a recurrent and disruptive problem."
The authors note that 2 million Americans would likely see their homes permanently flooded if sea levels rise 3 feet. Twice that increase would inundate the homes of 6 million.
Only the rosiest scenarios would avoid a 3-foot rise by 2100.
The effects of global warming, of course, will continue long beyond that year.
"Even if society sharply reduces emissions in the coming decades," the authors write, "sea level will most likely continue to rise for centuries."

Links

27/01/2017

Prince Charles Warns Climate Change Deniers Will 'Test World To Destruction' By 'Sticking Their Head In The Sand'

Evening StandardChloe Chaplain

Climate change: Prince Charles delivering a speech on Forests in 2015 AFP/Getty Images
Prince Charles has warned climate change deniers will "test our world to destruction" unless action is taken to cut pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Prince of Wales said evidence of change to the global climate is inescapable and the situation "so serious that we cannot look away or stick our heads into the sand".
Shrinking ice caps, the migrant crisis and conflicts are just some of the disasters being fuelled by man-made climate change, he said.
The passionate campaigner issued the appeal as environmentalists raised concerns over the United States' commitment to cutting emissions under Donald Trump's administration.
Donald Trump: The President has previously said that he believes climate change is a hoax (AP)
The new president, who once said climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese to undermine the American economy, is expected to swiftly rewrite US energy policy and undo regulations including restrictions on oil drilling and coal mining.
In contrast Charles praised China, home to some of the most polluted cities in the world, for providing "strong leadership" in showing how quickly technology can be adopted to tackle the problem.
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Charles said the world can no longer afford to dispute the hard facts or treat climate change as a "matter of opinion".
Climate change: Prince Charles wrote the book with Emily Shuckburgh, a Cambridge University climate scientist, left, and Tony Juniper, a former Friends of the Earth director (AP)
"We can take the scientific evidence and act accordingly, or we can find ways to remain unconvinced that robust and immediate action is necessary," he wrote.
"The problem with the latter choice is that we will continue to test our world to destruction until we finally have the 'evidence' to show that its viability and habitability have been destroyed.
"And by the time we come to our senses, it is likely be too late to do anything about it."
A 20-fold increase in the use of energy since the industrial revolution has led to a dramatic rise in carbon emissions that are causing "alarming" changes in the natural world, Charles said.
Evidence from satellites and other observations demonstrates the retreat of glaciers around the world, diminishing water supplies in South Asia, the demise of sea ice in the Arctic and the death of coral reefs, the Prince explained.
Charles also cited the "numerous" records that are being broken by extreme weather around the world, describing flooding in particular as "one of the most terrible events".
"It is leading to a decline in some wildlife species, threatens food and water supplies and can be a contributing factor for the migration of people.
"These effects can in turn exacerbate political tensions and help fuel conflict," he wrote.
The Prince dismissed suggestions by some scientists that there has been a "pause" in global warming, referring instead to data that showed 2016, 2015 and 2014, were the warmest on record.
He also rejected the criticism made by some sceptics that environmental regulations stifle development and employment, noting: "Acting now is far cheaper than picking up the pieces later."
Charles has co-authored a peer-reviewed Ladybird Expert book on the issue with a leading environmentalist and a climate scientist.
His proposals for taking on climate change range in scale from featuring global warming on weather forecasts to overhauling the economy.

Links

Trump's 'Control-Alt-Delete' On Climate Change Policy

BBC - Matt McGrath

Amid concerns over his attitude to climate change, the new President has signed orders to push forward with two major oil pipelines. Getty Images
Are the recent actions taken by the Trump team on the issues of climate and energy the opening shots in a war on knowledge?
Or are they simply what you'd expect from a new administration of a different political hue?
Let's examine what we know.
Just after Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president, a range of information on the White House website related to climate change was moved to an Obama online archive.
The only references to rising temperatures on the new Trump White House site are a commitment to eliminate "harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan". This was President Obama's broad-based strategy to cut carbon emissions.
The brief White House document now contains a further indication of the green priorities of the new administration. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should focus on its "essential mission of protecting our air and water".
The Twitter account of Badlands National Park has seen a number of tweets relating to climate change deleted. Getty Images
While the administration figures out how to achieve that re-focus, staff at the EPA have been told to freeze all grant making, and to be quiet about it. This means that no external press releases will be issued and no social media posts will be permitted. It is unclear when these restrictions will be lifted.
Reports from news agencies indicate that the roll-back will not stop there, with climate information pages hosted by the EPA expected to be shut down.
"My guess is the web pages will be taken down, but the links and information will be available," the prominent climate sceptic and adviser to the Trump transition team, Myron Ebell, told Reuters.
"If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," said an anonymous EPA staff member, according to reports.
The Trump team has also taken immediate steps to push forward with two controversial oil pipelines.
So are all these moves evidence of a malevolent mindset, determined to crush all this snowflake climate change chatter?
Definitely, according to Alden Meyer, a veteran climate campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"President Trump and his team are pursuing what I call a 'control-alt-delete' strategy: control the scientists in the federal agencies, alter science-based policies to fit their narrow ideological agenda, and delete scientific information from government websites," told BBC News.
"This is an across-the-board strategy that we are seeing at multiple federal agencies on a range of issues, though climate denialism is clearly the point of the spear."
Not according to White House spokesman Sean Spicer.
"I don't think it's any surprise that when there's an administration turnover, that we're going to review the policy," he said.
However the disappearance of tweets of basic climate change information from the Badlands National Park Twitter account has raised serious concerns that the Trump team is not just seeking to roll back regulation, but is also taking an ideological stand against what they might see as "warmist" propaganda
Protesters have maintained a long-term presence to stall progress on the Dakota Access Pipeline. Getty Images
Back in 2009, President Obama enacted rules that federal agencies should have scientific integrity policies, that guaranteed the rights of free speech of employees, following on from the gagging of some researchers and the altering of reports under the Bush administration.
While the current steps being taken by the Trump team may turn out to be less restrictive than feared, on this side of the pond there's a great deal of concern.
Scientists see the forthcoming visit of UK prime minister Theresa May to Washington as an opportunity to press the President to rein in his approach.
"We are beginning to see our fears realised less than a week after President Trump has taken office," said Bob Ward, from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
"I hope that the Prime Minister will challenge President Trump about this censorship and political interference in the process of gaining and sharing knowledge about climate change during their meeting on Friday."
Climate scientists in the US are also rallying to fight back.
A march on Washington by scientists is being proposed, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts have been created based on the the idea that "an American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world".
Meanwhile, another national park - Golden Gate NPS - has started tweeting climate facts.

Links

This Anxiety-Inducing Video Shows More Than 100 Years Of Climate Change In 20 Seconds

Science Alert - Fiona Macdonald

NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed this week that 2016 really was the hottest year on record... again.
That might not seem so alarming - after all, climate and weather trends come and go. But the reality is that, regardless of how much the planet's temperature has changed over its 4.5 billion years of existence, it's nothing compared to what we've seen in the past century.
XKCD made that abundantly clear with this incredible infographic that takes a big-picture view of climate change throughout human history.
But a timeline is one thing - it's another thing entirely to see that average temperature creep up and creep up, year-on-year, in this stress-inducing 20-second time-lapse, released by NASA last week:


The data in the video above goes back to 1880, when NASA began collecting temperature records from its 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations, and Antarctic research stations.
Until around the 1970s, you can see that the temperature fluctuates much like you'd expect, with the oranges and reds reflecting warmer temperatures, and the blues showing cooler years.
But from the 1980s onwards, there's very little blue left on the globe, and it's slowly covered in orange, yellow, and red, taking us right through to 2016.
The reference thermometer you can see in the top left-hand corner reflects the temperature difference (in degrees Celsius) between each year, and the mid-20th century mean - the '0' on the scale.
By the end of last year, the average temperatures around the planet were creeping up to almost 1 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than that reference point.
"2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. "We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear."
As you can see in the visualisation, not all of that warming happens across the planet at the same time, thanks to weather phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña.
For example, 48 states in the US experienced 2016 as only the second hottest year on record, but the Arctic experienced its warmest year ever, with record low sea ice coverage to match.
If a video isn't really your thing, NASA also released this gif showing the year-on-year increases. If it's not moving, you can see it in action here:


Either way you look at it, we're in a period of unprecedented global warming. So we'd better learn how to cope with rising temperatures, fast.

Links

26/01/2017

Changing Climate Has Stalled Australian Wheat Yields: Study

The ConversationZvi Hochman | David L. Gobbett | Heidi Horan

Fields of gold: Australia’s wheat industry contributes more than A$5 billion to the economy each year. Wheat image from www.shutterstock.com
Australia’s wheat yields more than trebled during the first 90 years of the 20th century but have stalled since 1990. In research published today in Global Change Biology, we show that rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, in line with global climate change, are responsible for the shortfall.
This is a major concern for wheat farmers, the Australian economy and global food security as the climate continues to change. The wheat industry is typically worth more than A$5 billion per year – Australia’s most valuable crop. Globally, food production needs to increase by at least 60% by 2050, and Australia is one of the world’s biggest wheat exporters.
There is some good news, though. So far, despite poorer conditions for growing wheat, farmers have managed to improve farming practices and at least stabilise yields. The question is how long they can continue to do so.

Worsening weather
While wheat yields have been largely the same over the 26 years from 1990 to 2015, potential yields have declined by 27% since 1990, from 4.4 tonnes per hectare to 3.2 tonnes per hectare.
Potential yields are the limit on what a wheat field can produce. This is determined by weather, soil type, the genetic potential of the best adapted wheat varieties and sustainable best practice. Farmers’ actual yields are further restricted by economic considerations, attitude to risk, knowledge and other socio-economic factors.
While yield potential has declined overall, the trend has not been evenly distributed. While some areas have not suffered any decline, others have declined by up to 100kg per hectare each year.
The distribution of the annual change in wheat yield potential from 1990 to 2015. Each dot represents one of the 50 weather stations used in the study. David Gobbett, Zvi Hochman and Heidi Horan, Author provided
We found this decline in yield potential by investigating 50 high-quality weather stations located throughout Australia’s wheat-growing areas.
Analysis of the weather data revealed that, on average, the amount of rain falling on growing crops declined by 2.8mm per season, or 28% over 26 years, while maximum daily temperatures increased by an average of 1.05℃.
To calculate the impact of these climate trends on potential wheat yields we applied a crop simulation model, APSIM, which has been thoroughly validated against field experiments in Australia, to the 50 weather stations.

Climate variability or climate change?
There is strong evidence globally that increasing greenhouse gases are causing rises in temperature.
Recent studies have also attributed observed rainfall trends in our study region to anthropogenic climate change.
Statistically, the chance of observing the decline in yield potential over 50 weather stations and 26 years through random variability is less than one in 100 billion.
We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).
First, we statistically removed the rising temperature trends from the daily temperature records and re-ran the simulations. This showed that lower rainfall accounted for 83% of the decline in yield potential, while temperature rise alone was responsible for 17% of the decline.
Next we re-ran our simulations with climate records, keeping CO₂ at 1990 levels. The CO₂ enrichment effect, whereby crop growth benefits from higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, prevented a further 4% decline relative to 1990 yields.
So the rising CO₂ levels provided a small benefit compared to the combined impact of rainfall and temperature trends.

Closing the yield gap
Why then have actual yields remained steady when yield potential has declined by 27%? Here it is important to understand the concept of yield gaps, the difference between potential yields and farmers’ actual yields.
An earlier study showed that between 1996 and 2010 Australia’s wheat growers achieved 49% of their yield potential – so there was a 51% “yield gap” between what the fields could potentially produce and what farmers actually harvested.
Averaged out over a number of seasons, Australia’s most productive farmers achieve about 80% of their yield potential. Globally, this is considered to be the ceiling for many crops.
Wheat farmers are closing the yield gap. From harvesting 38% of potential yields in 1990 this increased to 55% by 2015. This is why, despite the decrease in yield potential, actual yields have been stable.
Impressively, wheat growers have adopted advances in technology and adapted them to their needs. They have adopted improved varieties as well as improved practices, including reduced cultivation (or “tillage”) of their land, controlled traffic to reduce soil compaction, integrated weed management and seasonally targeted fertiliser use. This has enabled them to keep pace with an increasingly challenging climate.

What about the future?
Let’s assume that the climate trend observed over the past 26 years continues at the same rate during the next 26 years, and that farmers continue to close the yield gap so that all farmers reach 80% of yield potential.
If this happens, we calculate that the national wheat yield will fall from the recent average of 1.74 tonnes per hectare to 1.55 tonnes per hectare in 2041. Such a future would be challenging for wheat producers, especially in more marginal areas with higher rates of decline in yield potential.
While total wheat production and therefore exports under this scenario will decrease, Australia can continue to contribute to future global food security through its agricultural research and development.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative