The Paris Agreement: Is Australia Going Far Enough?

The Huffington Post - Emma Brancatisano

Demonstrators from Greenpeace paint their faces white to highlight coral bleaching in Sydney as world leaders join to sign the Paris Agreement in New York. | ASSOCIATED PRESS

A total of 175 countries gathered at the United Nations in New York overnight to sign the The Paris Agreement that was brokered in December last year.
The meeting marked an international push to legally bring the climate change agreement into force. It is the largest number of signatories ever garnered for the opening day of a UN agreement.
The Paris Agreement was widely regarded as 'historic'; the best possible global agreement to curb climate change and slow the pace of global warming. But with great promise comes great responsibility to act. And in the months since, Australia's trajectories are quickly dimming.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt spoke with ABC radio on Saturday from New York. He said Australia has signed the agreement and will immediately begin the process of ratifying it. According to Hunt, Australia is on track to "meet and beat" its emissions reductions targets set out under the agreement.
At home, environmental activists painted in white staged a sombre protest over the plight of Australia's dying reefs. And Cabinet Ministers continue to question the science of climate change.

So, what is it?
The Paris Agreement was signed on December 11, 2015 by 195 nations worldwide. After two weeks of negotiations and word-wrangling at the 21st Conference of the Parties, or COP21, diplomats agreed to a global climate change accord that sets a cap on global warming at "well below" 2 degrees Celsius and an aspirational 1.5 degrees. The end goal? Reaching global net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
"The agreement says we are going to limit pollution, and it outlines our targets moving forward," CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation Kelly O'Shanassy told The Huffington Post Australia.
"Global warming is a global problem and it needs a global solution. The agreement was the first critical step."

CEO of The Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O'Shanassy attended the climate change summit in Paris.

The accord was the world's first comprehensive climate agreement to commit all countries to cutting carbon emissions. Signatories were tasked with preparing, maintaining and publishing their own greenhouse gas reduction targets that should be greater than current targets and should "reflect the highest possible ambition". It is partly legally binding and partly voluntary, providing for five-yearly reviews that will assess whether countries are meeting their commitments.
O'Shanassy, who attended the conference, said there were tears of relief when the Paris Agreement was finalised -- but many pointed to the task ahead.
"It was a wonderful experience to be there on the day of the signing. It was really the vulnerable, low-lying nations that pushed it over the line.
"At 1.5 degrees and above, they lose their homes. At 1.5 degrees and above, we lose the Great Barrier Reef... we're already seeing this and we haven't even go to those levels of warming yet. If we don't get on to reducing pollution fast, it is just a piece of paper."
Australia was one of 195 parties to commit to the agreement last December. It will come into force as soon as 55 countries responsible for 55 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases have ratified the accord.
The target date for the agreement to begin is 2020, but momentum is building to ensure the accord enters into force much earlier.

Is Australia on track?
In the months since the Paris Agreement, Australia has traipsed through two of the hottest months ever recorded and an El Nino event that saw localised warming reach higher than 1.5 degrees. And we have seen the devastating results – with 93 percent of Australians reefs now impacted by coral bleaching due to warming oceans.

"We are seeing the impacts in nature of global warming right before our eyes. And yet the ambitions of what we signed up to in Paris are not achievable within the current suite of the Australian government's climate policies," O'Shanassy said.
Australia's current pollution reduction targets sits at a 26 to 28 percent emission reduction target by 2030. Up against global standards this is "very weak".
"If all countries' targets were as weak as Australia's, we would be tracking towards warming of three to four degrees," she said.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Government's target are one of the highest emissions reductions targets on a per capita basis in the world.
"We beat our Kyoto 1 targets. We're now clearly on track to meet and beat our Kyoto 2 targets and our Paris 2030 targets are strong and ambitious and they have been welcomed and hailed," he told ABC television.
"What they don't tell you is that we will still be one of the highest emitters per capita even after those reductions occurred because they are currently so high," said O'Shanassy.
According to O'Shanassy, the Australian government is purporting a "sustained attack" on renewable energy in Australia, through an 88 percent reduction in investment in 2014 and a weakened Renewable Energy Target.
"By doing all of this, our government has said we are open to business for coal and closed for business for renewables. The market has responded and pollution is increasing."
Greens Deputy Leader and climate change spokesperson Senator Larissa Waters describes the government's track record as "woeful".
"Their actions are flying in the face of commitments made at the conference. We have seen the cutting of the renewable energy targets, the slashing of The Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the continued approval of coal mines," she told Huffpost Australia.
"The government has been ignoring the science and probing their targets."

Moving forward
The government has made a commitment to ratify the Paris Agreement this year if re-elected.
For O'Shanassy, climate policy -- and all scenarios that limit global warming -- must point to a clean energy transformation.
"What we need is to phase out our existing coal plants and replace those with renewable energy and that has to be done carefully and in a planned way," she said.
"We need to make sure there is not an energy disruption and we need to take care of the workers and communities in those coal mining areas."
"A lot of modelling shows that can by and large be achieved by 2030."
The Australian Greens have developed a transition plan to achieve 90 percent renewable energy by this date and phase out fossil fuel power stations with a $1 billion Clean Energy Transition Fund to be overseen by a new government agency, Renew Australia.
The plan proposes an immediate ban on new coal and gas as well as targets to rapidly reduce Australia's climate pollution with a 60 to 80 percent cut by 2030.
"We want to implement pollution reduction targets based on what science is telling us and to speed up that transition to renewable energy," Senator Waters said.
"This is the defining issue of our generation. The fact that many members of parliament are still sceptical about the science is deeply disturbing.
"We are going to put global warming at the front and centre of our campaign this federal election."

Australia Snubbed By 'High-Ambition' Group At Climate Talks In New York

Fairfax - Tom Arup | Adam Morton
Australia was not invited to a meeting of the ''high ambition coalition'' on climate change in New York this week. 

That was then: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop hugs then Marshall Islands minister Tony de Brum at the Paris climate summit. Photo: Andrew McLeish

Nobody likes left being out of the cool gang – especially one they have asked to join.
But that was Australia's fate overnight when it was excluded by a group of countries describing itself as the "high ambition coalition" on climate change, reflecting ongoing wariness about our commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.The apparent snub came as up to 170 countries gathered at the United Nations in New York to formally sign the Paris climate deal reached last December.The high ambition coalition – including heavy-hitters such as the US, Canada, Germany and Brazil – came together in Paris in a bid to bolster the strength of a global climate agreement and head-off moves by countries such as India and Saudi Arabia to water down parts of the deal.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Australia was invited to join the climate coalition. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Australia was not initially involved, prompting claims other countries did not believe it was serious about being a player at the talks. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop dismissed this, later saying it had been invited to join by the European Union and had accepted. She hit back at criticism on social media.But Australia, which is being represented by Environment Minister Greg Hunt in New York for the signing, was not invited to the first meeting of the group since Paris, which was held on Friday morning Australia time.It is understood Australia has sought ongoing involvement in the coalition, and had reached out to the countries involved through diplomatic channels, but had so far been rebuffed.
A diplomatic source said of the New York get-together: "They [Australia] were definitely aware of the meeting. There is definitely ongoing interest."
Asked why Australia had not been invited, another diplomatic source said it had not been involved in the main work of the coalition in Paris.
Erwin Jackson, the Climate Institute's deputy chief executive, said it was likely that Australia's weak climate policies had led to it being left out.
"We've got a 2030 target consistent with 3 to 4 degrees of global warming and we've got a domestic policy framework that has seen emissions increase from the electricity sector," Mr Jackson said.
"It is difficult to be in a high ambition coalition if you are a low ambition country."
Fairfax Media asked Ms Bishop's office why Australia had not been invited. A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman replied, saying the government was pleased to have joined the high ambition coalition at Paris where "together we sent a strong signal that a broad range of countries were committed to an ambitious outcome".
"Australia remains committed to working constructively with all parties to take action on climate change and we will look to ratify the Paris agreement as soon as possible," the spokeswoman said.
The Paris agreement comes into force once 55 countries, representing at least 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, ratify the deal. Mr Hunt told the ABC on Wednesday that he hoped that Australian would ratify the deal this year.
Australia is not the only country left off the invitation list for the New York meeting. Japan, which sought to join the coalition late in Paris and got as far as being included on a formal membership list that was circulated following the meeting and did not include Australia, also wasn't invited.
It is understood the New York meeting discussed how the countries involved would start translating the Paris deal – including a goal of keeping global warming to within 1.5 degrees of pre-industrial levels – into practice back home. It also heard from civil society and business leaders, including former US vice-president and climate change campaigner Al Gore.
A spokeswoman for Mr Hunt said ahead of the signing ceremony Australia had attended an oceans roundtable, a Canada-led event with countries looking to ratify the Paris agreement quickly and a bilateral meeting with the United Arab Emirates to promote renewable energy investment.

Cabinet Ministers Fiona Nash And George Brandis Say Climate Science 'Not Settled'

Fairfax - Michael Koziol

Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash has joined her cabinet colleague  Attorney-General George Brandis in claiming the science of climate change is not yet settled.
Senator Nash, responsible for regional development, communications and health, told Sky News there were "varying views" on climate science and she was of the opinion it was still up for debate.
"I don't think it's necessarily settled but I think we certainly think we should be taking every precaution possible to ensure that the planet is healthy," she said.

Deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash at her Parliament House office. Photo: Andrew Meares

"I think there's varying views on whether it's settled or not. What I'm really focused on, again as a farmer, is that climate is changing and that we have to be able to adapt."
Earlier in the week, Senator Brandis told the Senate there were still questions about the nature and causes of climate change, though he acknowledged he was not a scientist.
Addressing Labor's Kim Carr, Senator Brandis said: "Senator Carr, you're the one who says the science is settled. I don't."

Attorney-General George Brandis with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Janie Barrett

"I'm aware that there are a number of views about the two questions of the nature and the causes of climate change," he said. "It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled at all. But I'm not a scientist, and I'm agnostic really on that question."
He made the comments during the tabling of documents in relation to the CSIRO, which is taking a major hit to its climate research capacity courtesy of job cuts.
Senator Brandis said it was illogical for Labor to contend the science was settled but simultaneously oppose changes to the CSIRO that "would reflect the fact that the science is settled".
He appeared to be arguing that the CSIRO had been restructured because climate science was now settled.
Labor seized on Senator Brandis' remarks, labelling them "breathtaking" and suggesting climate scepticism was still prevalent within Coalition ranks.
The vast majority - in excess of 97 per cent - of scientific papers on climate change agree its causes are primarily man-made.
CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall told staff in February: "The question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with."
But as recently as last month, the NSW Liberal Party called on the Turnbull government to conduct a series of public debates about climate change, including one on the question: "Is all the science settled?"
The motion reportedly passed the Liberal Party's state council with the support of more than 70 per cent of delegates.
Climate change remains a vexed issue within the Coalition. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was deposed from his 2009 stint as Liberal leader due to his support for Labor's emissions trading scheme, and conservative elements both within and outside the Coalition remain hostile to climate action.
Last year, former prime minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser Maurice Newmann memorably opined that climate change was a hoax led by the United Nations so that it could impose "a new world order".

Link

• George Brandis Says Climate Science Not Settled, But CSIRO Should Act As If It Is

Record Number Of Countries To Sign Historic Paris Agreement On Climate Change On Earth Day

AccuWeather - Miguel Perez

A historic meeting will take place on April 22, 2016, as 155 countries have committed to sign the Paris Agreement on Climate Change at the headquarters of the United Nations (UN) in New York.
The agreement was approved by the 196 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention of the Climate Change (UNFCCC) in COP21 in Paris on Dec. 12, 2015. In the agreement, all countries pledged to work to limit the temperature rise overall below 2 degrees Celsius, but are aiming to achieve a temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Sunday, Dec. 6, 2015, photo, the Eiffel Tower lights up with the slogan"Action Now"referring to the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

Following the Friday event at the UN headquarters, the period for signatures will remain open for one year, so that all parties can sign to validate the Paris Agreement and to ratify it.
The signing ceremony will take place during the morning and early Friday afternoon. In it the Paris Agreement will be signed officially by the representatives of the parties to the UNFCCC. Parallel to the signing, representatives of countries will make their national statements and deliver the instruments of ratification, or specific action plans to combat climate change.
The opening takes place in the hall of the General Assembly, with the Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-moon, President of France Francois Hollande, the President of the COP21 Segolene Royal and the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC Christiana Figueres, according to UN officials.
"The number of countries that have indicated their intention to attend and sign the Paris Agreement on 22 April is now up to 155," said the Spokesman for the UN Secretary General Farhan Haq in a press conference last Friday.
What are countries committing to when they sign the Paris Agreement?
All parties to the UNFCCC are invited to sign the agreement, as stated in a recent press release.
With each country's signing of the agreement, they must also submit a proposal plan for actions for the agreement to be effective.
This process takes many different forms and can be quick or longer, depending on the internal practices of each country.

French President Francois Hollande, right, French Foreign Minister and president of the COP21 Laurent Fabius, second, right, United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres and United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon hold their hands up after the final conference at the COP21, the United Nations conference on climate change, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, Saturday, Dec.12, 2015. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)

After each nation completes this process, the action plans will be presented to the Depositary under Ban Ki-moon in New York. It is only when an action plan has been deposited that a country has officially ratified the Paris Agreement.
The Paris Agreement will become effective on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, which cut at least about 55 percent of total emissions of greenhouse gases, have reached the full requirements under the agreement, the statement said.
Referring to the political will and the massive wave of action that allowed the adoption of the historic Paris Agreement last December, UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres said in a talk at TED 2016 last February in Vancouver, "Impossible isn't a fact; it's an attitude."
In her talk, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC explains how the world's nations "met and decided unanimously to intentionally change the course of the world economy in order to protect the most vulnerable and improve the lives of us all."
This Friday, a record number of countries under the UNFCCC will meet in New York to sign the agreement, which is expected to enter into force quickly, sending a strong signal of commitment to combat climate change. The old record for international countries signing an agreement goes back to the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay, which was signed by 119 countries on opening day in 1982.
Signing of climate change agreement coincides with international Earth Day celebration
This year's Earth Day coincides with the ceremony of the signing of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
In 2009 the UN General Assembly decided to designate April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, with the resolution A/RES/63/278. Representatives at the meeting acknowledged that Mother Earth is a common expression for the planet Earth in a number of countries and regions, and that this demonstrates the interdependence between human beings, other living species and the planet we all inhabit, and noting that Earth Day is observed each year in many countries.
 By 2016 the theme chosen is: Trees for Earth. In the United States, Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970 and is organized by the Earth Day Network whose mission is to broaden and diversify the environmental movement worldwide and mobilize as the most effective vehicle for building a healthy, sustainable environment, tackling climate change and protecting the Earth for future generations.

Matt Ritter, left, Nico Reyes, 6, center, and Patrick Grover all help in planting a tree along the Los Angeles River during a community tree-planting and clean-up effort as part of Earth Day, Saturday, April 20, 2002, in the Glassell Park area of Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Lee Celano)

Leading up to the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day and emphasizing the theme of this year, the Earth Day Network has set a target of planting 7.8 million trees in the next five years.
Trees help to combat climate change as they absorb excess CO2 that is harmful to the Earth's atmosphere. In fact, in one year, an acre of mature trees absorbs the same amount of CO2 produced by driving the average car 26,000 miles, as described by the UN on the International Day of Mother Earth website.
Trees also help to counter the loss of species. Likewise, for the different communities and their livelihoods, trees help achieve economic and environmental sustainability in the long term and provide food, energy and income.
This year the International Mother Day will be historic with the formal invitation that Ban Ki-moon has extended to governments to sign the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
"The world now has an agreement on universal, equitable, flexible and durable climate," Ki-moon said. "Our task is not over. In fact, it's just begun. In 2016, we must move from words to deeds. The signing ceremony this April 22 is an essential step."

Links

• What is La Nina?
• Mexico City authorities order cars off the road one day per week to combat dangerous smog
• More than 150 dead as stifling heat grips India

15 Images That Show How Climate Change Has Affected This Slowly Vanishing Island

Business Inside - Courtney Verrill

About 90 miles south of Kolkata, India, lies an island that is slowly washing away.
Ghoramara Island, located in the Sundarbans Delta, has seen a dramatic rise in sea levels due to climate change. A recent study by oceanographer Sugata Hazra found that 30 square miles of the Sundarbans have disappeared in the past 30 years. More than 600 families have had to relocate from Ghoramara.
Photographer Daesung Lee spent two months on the island, living side by side with those who currently reside there. "The first day I arrived, there was low tide and I saw what the coast of the island looked like. [It appeared that] it was surrounded with a rock cliff, but it was actually the eroding land of island," Lee told Business Insider.
Lee asked residents to stand on small pieces of land near the edges of the island to show the severity of the land breaking away. Below, see Lee's haunting photos, which won him third place in the Contemporary Issues category at the Sony World Photography Awards in 2013.

Ghoramara Island Daesung Lee 

Made up of 54 separate islands, the Sundarbans are one of the world's largest collection of river delta islands. They are located off the coast of southern Bangladesh and eastern India.

Google maps

Ghoramara Island is in the delta area of the Sundarbans, which meets the Indian Ocean.

Daesung Lee

The warmer weather has caused glaciers to melt, which increased the sea level and made the river flow faster, causing it to slowly break down the island.

Daesung Lee

"For this series, I simply focused on two facts — [the] disappearing island and its inhabitants," Lee told Business Insider. "I found some symbolic landscape that explained the situation of the island and [I photographed] the inhabitants on this land to show their home is disappearing."

Daesung Lee

About four million people live on the Indian side of the Sundarbans.

Daesung Lee Source: The New York Times

The exact population of Ghoramara Island, as well as how many people have left, is unclear because there are no actual government records.

Daesung Lee Source: Academia.edu

But it's believed that since 1969, Ghoramara has shrunk down to half its former size.

Daesung Lee

Today, it barely covers three miles.

Daesung Lee

Ghoramara used to be only two miles away from Kakdwip, located on the mainland, but now it's five miles away.

Daesung Lee Source: Europe UNDP

Over the past 20 years, two other islands that were once by Ghoramara have washed away completely.

Daesung Lee Source: The New York Times

People who have been forced to leave the island because it is washing away are going to Sagar Island — about six miles south of Ghoramara — which has also shrunk about two miles in the past nine years.

Daesung Lee Source: The New York Times

Most of the people who remain on Ghoramara Island are farmers and fisherman.

Daesung Lee

"It still has old, traditional farming culture," Lee said.

Daesung Lee

The mud dams the residents have built around the islands over the years are too fragile to keep away the rising sea level. They are so fragile that one storm could potentially destroy a lifetime's labor on the land.

Daesung Lee Source: The New York Times

When Lee was visiting, a civil servant he met told him the island is expected to be completely washed away within 25 years.

Daesung Lee

Signing The Paris Climate Agreement Is Easy – What Comes Next For Australia Will Be Hard

The Conversation - Tim Stephens

The Paris climate agreement will be open for signing at the UN’s New York headquarters for the next year, starting tomorrow. Yero/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Tomorrow, world leaders and diplomats will converge on the United Nations' New York headquarters to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change. It will be the largest UN signing event in history, with representatives from at least 162 countries, including more than 60 heads of state, on hand to sign the historic deal that was struck last December.
Signing is just the first step. Nations then have to follow through by ratifying the agreement. Only when 55 countries, representing at least 55% of world greenhouse emissions, have signed and ratified the agreement will it become binding under international law.
Such is the eagerness among the international community to sign and ratify the Paris Agreement that it is quite possible it could enter into force this year, rather than in 2020 as was initially expected.
As 2016 continues to smash global heat records, there is a renewed sense of urgency among almost all governments. They now acknowledge that greenhouse emissions must be reduced rapidly if there is any hope of meeting the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2℃.
Australia’s government has confirmed that it will be represented at the ceremony, although it will be Environment Minister Greg Hunt rather than Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who will join world leaders in inking the deal.

Australia’s track record
Australia has signed previous climate treaties, but it has a mixed record in following through with its commitments.
The Keating government supported the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. In the same year, it signed and ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That agreement gave rise to the UN climate regime of which the Paris Agreement is now the most important component.
In 1997, the Howard government negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, in the process winning major concessions that allowed Australia to increase its emissions rather than reduce them.
Despite this sweetener, John Howard refused to take the logical step and render Kyoto legally binding by ratifying it. The Kyoto Protocol only entered into force in 2005, after Russia ratified the treaty. It was not until 2007, following the election of the Rudd government, that Australia finally ratified Kyoto.
In 2011 the Gillard government introduced an emissions trading scheme (with an initial fixed carbon price) to ensure Australia could meet its Kyoto commitments (and deliver deeper cuts over time, as by itself Kyoto has achieved minimal emissions reductions). But the Abbott government repealed this measure in July 2014 and replaced it with the Direct Action policy. This policy remains a work in progress and has not locked in the necessary emissions cuts to keep Australia’s goals within reach.
Australia’s actions since 2013 are clearly against the international tide. According to the World Bank, 40 nations and 23 subnational jurisdictions have adopted or are planning to adopt carbon prices.
The Turnbull government’s active and supportive participation in last year’s Paris climate negotiations signalled that, on the international plane at least, some bipartisanship has returned to Australia’s climate policy. The same cannot be said of the domestic front, where the major parties are still at loggerheads on the climate challenge.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has pledged that a Labor government would reintroduce an emissions trading scheme if elected this year. But the Coalition government remains implacably opposed to any price on carbon. This is despite the fact that Turnbull himself was a strong supporter of carbon pricing and previously staked (and lost) his leadership of the Liberal Party on emissions trading in 2009. Even Howard proposed a comprehensive emissions trading policy in the dying days of his government in 2007.

Tricky times
This is a major problem because without agreement across political lines, Australia could be signing a treaty with which it cannot comply.
Australia is the world’s 13th-largest greenhouse emitter and the highest per capita emitter in the OECD. Now, because of the abolition of the carbon price, its emissions are rising for the first time in a decade.
Australia looks set to overshoot even its modest target of reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. And as commitments under the Paris Agreement will become stricter over time, with the deal requiring countries to ramp up their climate pledges every five years, Australia will be in an increasingly difficult and embarrassing position of having made promises it cannot keep.
This may set the scene for dithering by the Turnbull government, in much the same way as the Howard government held out against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol for a decade before finally proposing a climate policy when electorally it was already too late.
This year is off to a scorching start. Globally, February was a record-breaking 1.35℃ above average and March beat that record as soon as it was set. The effects are being felt from the polar regions, where the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is off the charts, to the tropics and subtropics, where record warm waters have bleached the Great Barrier Reef.
We know that to make a meaningful contribution to combating climate change, Australia needs a credible path to net zero emissions by 2050. To do this the Turnbull government must match its international commitments with effective laws and policies at home.
Legislating Australia’s climate targets, setting a national cap on emissions, and pricing carbon pollution are vital if Australia’s signature on the Paris Agreement is to mean anything at all.

Links

• No surprises: Canada and Australia are behind on climate
• Australia’s climate diplomacy is like a doughnut: empty in the middle

Earth Flirts with a 1.5-Degree Celsius Global Warming Threshold

Scientific American - Climate Central

Analysis suggests climate change is on track to be much warmer

Credit: Liam Moloney/Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

Global leaders are meeting in New York this week to sign the Paris climate agreement. One of the expressed purposes of the document is to limit warming to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.”
A Climate Central analysis shows that the world will have to dramatically accelerate emissions reductions if it wants to meet that goal. The average global temperature change for the first three months of 2016 was 1.48°C, essentially equaling the 1.5°C warming threshold agreed to by COP 21 negotiators in Paris last December.
February exceeded the 1.5°C target at 1.55°C, marking the first time the global average temperature has surpassed the sobering milestone in any month. March followed suit checking in at 1.5°C. January’s mark of 1.4°C, put the global average temperature change from early industrial levels for the first three months of 2016 at 1.48°C.

Climate Central scientists and statisticians made these calculations based on an average of global temperature data reported by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But rather than using the baselines those agencies employ, Climate Central compared 2016’s temperature anomalies to an 1881-1910 average temperature baseline, the earliest date for which global temperature data are considered reliable. NASA reports global temperature change in reference to a 1951-1980 climate baseline, and NOAA reports the anomaly in reference to a 20th century average temperature.
NASA’s data alone showed a February temperature anomaly of 1.63°C above early industrial levels with March at 1.54°C.
Calculating a baseline closer to the pre-industrial era provides a useful measure of global temperature for policymakers and the public to better track how successful the world’s efforts are in keeping global warming below agreed-upon thresholds.
A similar adjustment can be applied to some of the temperature change projections in the most recent IPCC report.
The IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Report contains projections of future global surface temperature change according to several scenarios of future socio-economic development, most of which are presented using a baseline of 1986 to 2005. The IPCC chose this baseline in order to provide its readers a more immediate base of comparison, the climate of the present world, which people are familiar with. But these representations may suggest that the Paris goals are easier to reach than is true.
The IPCC’s presentation of these scenarios was not designed to inform the discussion about warming limits (e.g., 1.5°C, 2°C goals of the Paris COP21 agreements). But the Panel does provide a way to make its projections of future warming consistent with discussions about targets.
 IPCC estimates, using the best and longest record available, show that the difference between the 1986-2005 global average temperature value used in most of the Panel’s projections, and pre-industrial global average temperature, is 0.61°C (0.55-0.67). Neglecting 0.61°C warming is not trivial, and makes a significant difference for the assessment of the goals established in Paris. In fact, 0.61°C amounts to about half the warming already experienced thus far.
To capture this warming and display the IPCC warming time series relative to the pre-industrial period, Climate Central adjusted a well known IPCC projection (SPM7(a)) to reflect a 1880-1910 baseline. This adjustment has a significant effect on the dates at which the 1.5 and 2°C thresholds are crossed, moving them up by about 15-20 years.

If current emissions trends continue (RCP8.5) we could cross the 1.5°C threshold in 10 to 15 years, somewhere between the years 2025-2030, compared to 2045-2050 when a 1985-2005 baseline is used. 

The dramatic global hot streak that kicked off 2016 doesn’t mean the world has already failed to meet the goals in the Paris agreement. Three months do not make a year, and it is unlikely that 2016 will exceed the 1881-1910 climate-normal by 1.5°C. This year is also in the wake of a strong El Niño, when higher-than-average temperatures would be expected.
And of course, exceeding the 1.5°C threshold for even an entire year would not mean that global temperatures had in fact risen to that point, never (at least within our lifetime) to drop back below it as it’s too short of a timeframe to make that determination.
But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone. The day the world first crossed the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold for atmospheric carbon dioxide heralded a future of ever increasing carbon dioxide. So too, do the first three months of 2016 send a clear signal of where our world is headed and how fast we are headed there if drastic actions to reduce carbon emissions are not taken immediately.

Background
On Dec.12, 2015, the 21st Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change approved the Paris Agreement committing 195 nations of the world to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.” The pact commits the world to adopt nationally determined policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accord with those goals.
The 2°C goal represents a temperature increase from a pre-industrial baseline that scientists believe will maintain the relatively stable climate conditions that humans and other species have adapted to over the previous 12,000 years. It will also minimize some of the worst impacts of climate change: drought, heat waves, heavy rain and flooding, and sea level rise. Limiting the global surface temperature increase to 1.5°C would lessen these impacts even further.
1.5 and 2°C are not hard and fast limits beyond which disaster is imminent, but they are now the milestones by which the world measures all progress toward slowing global warming. And yet it is surprisingly difficult to find objective measures that answer the question, where are we today on the path toward meeting the 1.5 or 2°C goals?
Every month NOAA and NASA update their global surface temperature change analysis, using data from the Global Historical Climate Network, and methods validated in the peer-reviewed literature (Hansen et al. 2010; NCDC). The monthly updates are posted on their websites, and made available to the public along with the underlying data and assumptions that go into their calculations.
These calculations are enormously useful for understanding the magnitude and pace of global warming. In fact, they are the bedrock measurements validating the fact that our planet is warming at all.
But none present their results in comparison to a pre-industrial climate normal.

Methods and Results
The NASA and NOAA monthly updates are presented as anomalies, or as the deviation from a baseline climate normal, calculated as an average of a 30-year reference period, or the 20th century average; they do not represent an absolute temperature increase from a specific date. NASA presents their results in reference to a 1951 to 1980 average temperature, NOAA in reference to a 20th century average temperature.
The NASA results, calculated by Goddard Institute for Space Studies are published monthly on the NASA/GISS website (GISTEMP). NOAA methods and monthly updates are published via the National Centers for Environmental Information here.
Climate Central used data from NASA and NOAA to create an 1881 to 1910 climate normal for the months of January, February, and March. We then compared the reported monthly 2016 anomaly for each of these months to this “early-industrial” baseline reference period.  These anomalies were then averaged to produce a mean monthly NASA/NOAA anomaly for each month. The results are presented below.
The NASA anomaly is considerably higher than the anomaly reported by NOAA. This reflects the fact the NASA’s calculations are tuned to account for temperature changes at the poles, where there are far fewer monitoring stations. NOAA relies only on historical station data and makes no adjustment to account for sparse records at the poles, where warming has been more rapid relative to non-polar regions.

Links

• Bleaching Hits 93 Percent of the Great Barrier Reef
• Earth Sees 11 Record Hot Months in a Row
• Sinking Atlantic Coastline Meets Rapidly Rising Seas