06/06/2021

(UK AZoCleantech) Sea Ice In Arctic Coastal Regions Are Thinning Faster Than Previously Thought

According to a new modeling study headed by researchers from the University College London (UCL), sea ice in the Arctic coastal regions may be thinning up to twice as fast as previously assumed.

The research vessel Polarstern drifting in Arctic sea ice. Source: MOSAiC website image library https://multimedia.awi.de/mosaic/. Image Credit: Alfred-Wegener-Institut.

The thickness of sea ice is deduced by quantifying the height of the ice above the water, but this measurement is affected by snow weighing the ice floe down. To adjust this measurement, scientists generally use a map of snow depth in the Arctic but this method is very old and does not factor in climate change.

Now, in a new research work recently published in The Cryosphere journal, scientists exchanged this map for the results of a novel computer model developed to predict the depth of the snow as it changes year to year, and they surmised that sea ice in major coastal areas was thinning at a speed that was 70% to 100% faster than previously assumed.

The thickness of sea ice is a sensitive indicator of the health of the Arctic. It is important as thicker ice acts as an insulating blanket, stopping the ocean from warming up the atmosphere in winter, and protecting the ocean from the sunshine in summer. Thinner ice is also less likely to survive during the Arctic summer melt.
Robbie Mallett, Study Lead and PhD Student, UCL Earth Sciences

Mallett continued, “Previous calculations of sea ice thickness are based on a snow map last updated 20 years ago. Because sea ice has begun forming later and later in the year, the snow on top has less time to accumulate. Our calculations account for this declining snow depth for the first time, and suggest the sea ice is thinning faster than we thought.”

There are a number of uncertainties in measuring sea ice thickness but we believe our new calculations are a major step forward in terms of more accurately interpreting the data we have from satellites.
Julienne Stroeve, Study Co-Author and Professor, UCL Earth Sciences

Stroeve continued, “We hope this work can be used to better assess the performance of climate models that forecast the effects of long-term climate change in the Arctic—a region that is warming at three times the global rate, and whose millions of square kilometres of ice are essential for keeping the planet cool.”

To estimate the thickness of sea ice, the investigators utilized radar from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 satellite. By timing the duration it takes for radar waves to reflect from the ice, the researchers can estimate the height of the ice above the water, from which they can deduce the overall thickness of the ice.

In the latest study, the investigators used an innovative snow model—called SnowModel-LG—that was earlier designed by scientists from UCL and Colorado State University.

This model calculates the depth and density of snow by using inputs, like snowfall, air temperature and ice motion data to monitor the amount of snow that builds up on sea ice as it travels around the Arctic Ocean.

Then researchers combined the outcomes of the snow model with satellite radar observations and subsequently calculated the total speed of decline of the thickness of sea ice in the Arctic region and also the variability of the thickness of the sea ice from year to year.

The researchers also observed that the speed of decline in the three coastal seas of Laptev, Kara, Chukchi increased by as much as 70%, 98% and 110%, in that order, when compared to previous calculations. The team further found that the variability in the thickness of the sea ice from year to year also increased by 58% across all seven coastal seas.

In the coastal seas, sea ice usually differs from 0.5 m to 2 m thick. But increasingly, the ice in this area is not tolerating the summer melt.

The more rapid thinning of sea ice in the coastal Arctic seas holds major implications for human activity in the area, in terms of shipping along the Northern Sea Route for a greater part of the year and also in terms of the extraction of resources from the seafloor, like minerals, gas and oil.

More ships following the route around Siberia would reduce the fuel and carbon emissions necessary to move goods around the world, particularly between China and Europe. However, it also raises the risk of fuel spillages in the Arctic, the consequences of which could be dire. The thinning of coastal sea ice is also worrying for indigenous communities, as it leaves settlements on the coast increasingly exposed to strong weather and wave action from the emerging ocean.
Robbie Mallett, Study Lead and PhD Student, UCL Earth Sciences

Mallett, Professor Stroeve, and study co-author Dr Michel Tsamados from UCL Earth Sciences had spent many weeks exploring ice and snow in the Arctic onboard the German research vessel Polarstern, which investigated the central Arctic Ocean in 2019 and 2020.

Links

(USA NYT) Tasked To Fight Climate Change, A Secretive U.N. Agency Does The Opposite

New York TimesMatt Apuzzo |

Behind closed doors, shipbuilders and miners can speak on behalf of governments while regulating an industry that pollutes as much as all of America’s coal plants.

The International Maritime Organization’s headquarters in London. Shipbuilders, oil companies, miners and chemical manufacturers are among the delegates appointed by many member nations. Credit...Mary Turner for The New York Times

LONDON — During a contentious meeting over proposed climate regulations last fall, a Saudi diplomat to the obscure but powerful International Maritime Organization switched on his microphone to make an angry complaint: One of his colleagues was revealing the proceedings on Twitter as they happened.

It was a breach of the secrecy at the heart of the I.M.O., a clubby United Nations agency on the banks of the Thames that regulates international shipping and is charged with reducing emissions in an industry that burns an oil so thick it might otherwise be turned into asphalt. Shipping produces as much carbon dioxide as all of America’s coal plants combined.

Internal documents, recordings and dozens of interviews reveal what has gone on for years behind closed doors: The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord.

One reason for the lack of progress is that the I.M.O. is a regulatory body that is run in concert with the industry it regulates. Shipbuilders, oil companies, miners, chemical manufacturers and others with huge financial stakes in commercial shipping are among the delegates appointed by many member nations. They sometimes even speak on behalf of governments, knowing that public records are sparse, and that even when the organization allows journalists into its meetings, it typically prohibits them from quoting people by name.

An agency lawyer underscored that point last fall in addressing the Saudi complaint. “This is a private meeting,” warned the lawyer, Frederick J. Kenney.

Next week, the organization is scheduled to enact its first greenhouse gas rules since Paris — regulations that do not cut emissions, have no enforcement mechanism and leave key details shrouded in secrecy. No additional proposals are far along in the rule-making process, meaning additional regulations are likely five years or more away.

A container ship sailing out of Hong Kong last year. The industry burns an oil so thick it might otherwise be turned into asphalt. Credit...Jerome Favre/EPA, via Shutterstock

The reason, records show, is that some of the same countries that signed the Paris accords have repeatedly diluted efforts to rein in shipping emissions — with industry representatives in their ears at every step. Shippers aligned themselves with developing nations like Brazil and India against setting emissions caps. China, home to four of the five busiest ports in the world, argued for years that it was too soon to make changes or even set targets.

Often, what politicians say publicly does not match their closed-door posture. In 2019, for example, when the Chilean president, Sebastián Piñera, urged world leaders to make “more ambitious climate commitments,” his diplomats in London worked to defeat shipping speed limits, a measure that would have reduced carbon emissions.

The stakes are high. Shipping, unlike other industries, is not easily regulated nation-by-nation. A Japanese-built tanker, for instance, might be owned by a Greek company and sailed by an Indian crew from China to Australia — all under the flag of Panama. That’s why, when world leaders omitted international shipping from the Paris agreement, responsibility fell to the I.M.O., which has standardized the rules since 1948.

So if the I.M.O. does not curb shipping emissions, it is unclear who will. And for now, the agency is not rushing to change.


“They have gone out of their way to try to block or water down or discourage real conversation,” said Albon Ishoda, a Marshall Islands diplomat.

His tiny Pacific island nation is among those that have benefited from, and perpetuated, the industry’s hold on the agency. The country effectively sold its diplomatic seat in London to a private American company decades ago.

But global warming changed things. Seas are rising. Homes are washing away. Much of the nation could become unlivable in the coming decade.

Children playing near the ocean in the Marshall Islands in 2015. Credit...Josh Haner/The New York Times

Now, the Marshall Islands are putting forward a moonshot environmental plan, a carbon tax that would penalize polluters. It is a shot across the bow of the I.M.O.’s industrial and political forces.

And the Marshallese are moving to reclaim their diplomatic seat and speak for themselves.

“My voice is coming from my ancestors, who saw the ocean as something that brought us wealth,” Kitlang Kabua, the Marshallese minister leading the effort. “Today we’re seeing it as something that will bring our ultimate death.”

Watered Down from the Get-Go

The Marshallese are unlikely disrupters at the maritime organization.

In 1990, the nation’s first president signed a deal with a company, International Registries Inc., to create a tax-friendly, low-cost way for ships to sail under the Marshall Islands flag.

The company, based in Virginia, did all the work and, on paper, the Marshall Islands became home to one of the world’s largest fleets. The government shared in the revenue — roughly $8 million a year as of recently, one official said.

Things got thorny, however, when the foreign minister, Tony de Brum, traveled to the I.M.O. in 2015. His stories of his vanishing homeland had given urgency to the Paris talks and he expected a similar reception in London.

He and his team had no idea what they were walking into.

When Mr. Ishoda arrived in island business attire — floral shirt, trousers and a suit jacket — he said security sent him back to his hotel for a tie.

“The I.M.O. is effectively a closed-door gathering of old male sailors,” said Thom Woodroofe, an analyst who accompanied Mr. de Brum to London. “It’s surprising it doesn’t still allow smoking.”

Mr. de Brum, too, was almost denied a seat. International Registries, which represented the Marshall Islands on the I.M.O., initially refused to yield to the foreign minister, Mr. Woodroofe recalled.

Foreign Minister Tony de Brum in the Marshall Islands in 2015. Credit...Josh Haner/The New York Times

At United Nations climate meetings, countries are typically represented by senior politicians and delegations of government officials. At the maritime organization’s environmental committee, however, one in four delegates comes from industry, according to separate analyses by The New York Times and the nonprofit group Influence Map.

Representatives of the Brazilian mining company Vale, one of the industry’s heaviest carbon polluters and a major sea-based exporter, sit as government advisers. So does the French oil giant Total, along with many shipowner associations. These arrangements allow companies to influence policy and speak on behalf of governments.

Connections can be hard to spot. Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho sat on the Brazilian delegation in 2017 and 2018 as a University of Sao Paulo scientist. But he also worked at a Vale-funded research organization and, during his second year, was a paid Vale consultant. In an interview, he described his role as mutually beneficial: Brazilian officials relied on his expertise, and Vale covered his costs.

“Sometimes you cannot tell the difference. Is this actually the position of a nation or the position of the industry?” said David Paul, a Marshallese senator who attended an I.M.O. meeting in 2018.

Hundreds of other industry representatives are accredited observers and can speak at meetings. Their numbers far exceed those of the approved environmental groups. The agency rejected an accreditation request by the Environmental Defense Fund in 2018.

Industry officials and the maritime organization say such arrangements give a voice to the experts. “If you don’t involve the people who are actually going to have to deliver, then you’re going to get a poor outcome,” said Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping.

Mr. de Brum tried to persuade these industry officials and diplomats to set ambitious emissions targets over the following eight months.

“Time is short, and it is not our friend,” he told delegates in 2015, according to notes from the meeting. (The Times independently obtained meeting records and never agreed not to quote people.)

But I.M.O.’s secretary general at the time, Koji Sekimizu of Japan, openly opposed strict emissions regulation as a hindrance to economic growth. And an informal bloc of countries and industry groups helped drag out the goal-setting process for three years.

Documents show that China, Brazil and India, in particular, threw up repeated roadblocks: In 2015, it was too soon to consider a strategy. In 2016, it was premature to discuss setting targets. In 2017, they lacked the data to discuss long-term goals.

Container ships and other vessels off the coast of Singapore. Credit...Vivek Prakash/Reuters

The question of data comes up often. Adm. Luiz Henrique Caroli, Brazil’s senior I.M.O. representative, said he does not believe the studies showing rising emissions. Brazil wants to cut emissions, he said, but not before further study on the economic effect.

“We want to do that, this reduction, in a controlled way,” he said in an interview.

The Cook Islands, another Pacific archipelago, make a similar argument. Like the Marshalls, they face rising seas and an uncertain future. But the more immediate concerns are jobs and cost of living, said Joshua Mitchell, of the country’s foreign office. “Existential questions have to be balanced against the priorities of the country in the moment,” he said.

Megan Darby, a journalist for Climate Home News, said she was suspended from maritime meetings after quoting a Cook Islands diplomat.

The I.M.O. almost never puts environmental policies to a vote, favoring instead an informal consensus-building. That effectively gives vocal opponents blocking power, and even some of the agency’s defenders acknowledge that it favors minimally acceptable steps over decisive action.

So, when delegates finally set goals in 2018, Mr. de Brum’s ambition had been whittled away.

The Marshall Islands suggested a target of zero emissions “by the second half of the century” — meaning by 2050. Industry representatives offered a slightly different goal: Decarbonization should occur “within” the second half of the century, a one-word difference that amounted to a 50-year extension.

Soon, though, the delegates agreed, without a vote, to eliminate zero-emissions targets entirely.

What remained were two key goals:

First, the industry would try to improve fuel efficiency by at least 40 percent. This was largely a mirage. The target was set so low that, by some calculations, it was reached nearly the moment it was announced.

Second, the agency aimed to cut emissions at least in half by 2050. But even this watered-down goal is proving unreachable. The agency’s own data say emissions may rise by 30 percent.

Compromised Away

Rising seas threaten homes in the Marshall Islands, like those on Ejit in the Majuro Atoll. Credit...Josh Haner/The New York Times

When delegates met last October — five years after Mr. de Brum’s speech — the organization had not taken any action. Proposals like speed limits had been debated and rejected.

What remained was what several delegates called the “refrigerator rating” — a score that, like those on American appliances, identified the clean and dirty ships.

European delegates insisted that, for the system to work, low-scoring ships must eventually be prohibited from sailing.

China and its allies wanted no such consequence.

So Sveinung Oftedal of Norway, the group’s chairman, told France and China to meet separately and compromise.

Delegates worked across time zones, meeting over teleconferences because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Shipping industry officials said they weighed in through the night.

The Marshallese were locked out.

“We’re always being told ‘We hear you,’” Mr. Ishoda said. “But when it comes to the details of the conversation, we’re told ‘We don’t need you to contribute.’”

Ultimately, France ceded to nearly all of China’s requests, records show. The dirtiest ships would not be grounded. Shipowners would file plans saying they intended to improve, would not be required to actually improve.

German delegates were so upset that they threatened to oppose the deal, likely triggering a cascade of defections, according to three people involved in the talks. But European Union officials rallied countries behind the compromise, arguing that Europe could not be seen as standing in the way of even limited progress.

“At I.M.O., that is as always the choice,” said Damien Chevallier, the French negotiator. “We have the choice to have nothing, or just to have a first step.”

All of this happened in secret. The I.M.O.’s summary of the meeting called it a “major step forward.” Natasha Brown, a spokeswoman, said it would empower customers and advocacy groups. “We know from consumer goods that the rating system works,” she said.

But the regulation includes another caveat: The I.M.O. will not publish the scores, letting shipping companies decide whether to say how dirty their ships are.

A Storm on the Horizon

Skies over the northeast Pacific Ocean streaked with clouds that form around particles from ship exhausts. Credit...NASA Earth Observatory

Ms. Kabua, the Marshallese minister, is under no illusions that reclaiming the diplomatic seat will lead to a climate breakthrough.

But if it works, she said, it might inspire other countries with private registries to do the same. Countries could speak for themselves rather than through a corporate filter.

Regardless of the outcome, the political winds are shifting. The European Union is moving to include shipping in its emissions-trading system. The United States, after years of being minor players at the agency, is re-engaging under President Biden and recently suggested it may tackle shipping emissions itself.

Both would be huge blows to the I.M.O., which has long insisted that it alone regulate shipping.

Suddenly, industry officials say they are eager to consider things like fuel taxes or carbon.

“There’s much more of a sense of momentum and crisis,” said Mr. Platten, the industry representative. “You can argue about, ‘Are we late to it,’ and all the rest. But it is palpable.”

Behind closed doors, though, resistance remains. At a climate meeting last winter, recordings show that the mere suggestion that shipping should become sustainable sparked an angry response.

“Such statements show a lack of respect for the industry,” said Kostas G. Gkonis, the director of the trade group Intercargo.

And just last week, delegates met in secret to debate what should constitute a passing grade under the new rating system. Under pressure from China, Brazil and others, the delegates set the bar so low that emissions can continue to rise — at roughly the same pace as if there had been no regulation at all.

Delegates agreed to revisit the issue in five years.

Links

(UK The Guardian) G7 Nations Committing Billions More To Fossil Fuel Than Green Energy

The Guardian

In spite of green rhetoric, money has piled into aviation and car industries since start of pandemic, report finds

G7 countries bailed out companies such as Air France without applying any green caveats. Photograph: Christian Hartmann/Reuters

The nations that make up the G7 have pumped billions of dollars more into fossil fuels than they have into clean energy since the Covid-19 pandemic, despite their promises of a green recovery.

As the UK prepares to host the G7 summit, new analysis reveals that the countries attending committed $189bn to support oil, coal and gas between January 2020 and March 2021. In comparison, the same countries – the UK, US, Canada, Italy, France, Germany and Japan – spent $147bn on clean forms of energy.

The support for fossil fuels from seven of the world’s richest nations included measures to remove or downgrade environmental regulations as well as direct funding of oil, gas and coal.

The analysis from the development charity Tearfund, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Overseas Development Institute showed that the nations missed opportunities to make their response to the pandemic greener.

In most cases, money provided for fossil fuel industries was given with no strings attached, rather than with conditions requiring a reduction in emissions or pollution. The analysis found that eight in every 10 dollars spent on non-renewable energy came without conditions.

This included lifelines that were thrown to the aviation and car industries, which received $115bn from the G7 countries. Of that money, 80% was given with no attempt to force the sectors to cut their emissions in return for the support.

Only one in every 10 dollars committed to the Covid-19 response benefited the “cleanest” energies such as renewables and energy efficiency measures.

The UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, will open the G7 summit in Cornwall on 11 June. He has said he wants to unite the nations to “build back better” from the coronavirus pandemic to create a greener, more prosperous future. As well as the G7, the UK has invited South Africa, Australia, India and South Korea to take part.

The analysis of the actions of the seven major western economies in the last 15 months reveals they are not yet investing at sufficient scale in technologies that support fast decarbonisation of their economies, and they have not created green jobs at scale in response to Covid-19.

Paul Cook, the head of advocacy at Tearfund, which operates in some of the poorest countries in the world most affected by global heating, said: “Every day, we witness the worsening consequences of the climate crisis for communities around the world – farmers’ crops failing; floods and fires engulfing towns and villages; families facing an uncertain future.

“Choices made now by the G7 countries will either accelerate the transition towards a climate-safe future for all, or jeopardise efforts to date to tackle the climate crisis.”

The G7 countries are among the most polluting in the world. They represent a 10th of the world’s population but are responsible for almost a quarter of CO2 emissions.

“Their actions can set the scene for success or failure at the UN climate talks being hosted by the UK in November,” Cook said.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, unprecedented amounts of public money were spent by nations; it is estimated that the 50 largest world economies committed at least $14.6tn to fiscal stimulus measures in 2020. The authors said that well-designed and targeted stimuli could be used as a springboard for launching low-carbon societies.

The report analysed the support the seven nations, plus the four others invited to attend the summit in Cornwall, gave to five energy areas: the cleanest energy, such as wind and solar; clean energy that may still rely on fossil fuel power, such as electric vehicles; fossil fuel energy with conditions; fossil fuel energy without any conditions; and other energy sectors including biofuels and nuclear.

The greatest support given by G7 countries was to transport. Bailouts were given to companies including Air France, British Airways, Ryanair, easyJet, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, Alitalia, Renault and Honda. The financial support would end up sustaining highly polluting industries for decades to come, with very little pressure to “go green”, the authors said.

Since the bailouts, some G7 countries have increased their commitments to cleaner energy, including rail and electric vehicles. But the report said: “Investments in the transport sector remain significantly skewed towards fossil fuels and are at odds with G7 commitments to build back better.”

The propping up of the oil and gas sectors was particularly evident in Canada and the US, both major oil and gas producers. As well as direct support, both countries rolled back environmental regulations on fossil fuel companies.

Some G7 nations made positive steps towards halting support for dirty industries. In February, Italy extended a ban until September this year on fossil fuel drilling. The UK and France brought in policies designed to end international support for fossil fuels. The UK has also announced a ban on new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.

“These actions should serve as a precedent for other G7 countries,” the report said.

This month, in the first comprehensive study of the journey to net zero, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said that pledges by governments, even if fully achieved, fell well short of what was required to bring global energy-related CO2 emissions down to net zero by 2050 and give the world an even chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as the Paris agreement states.

Links

05/06/2021

(AU The Conversation) ‘Flash Droughts’ Can Dry Out Soil In Weeks. New Research Shows What They Look Like In Australia

The Conversation | 

Dan Peled / AAP

Authors
  •  is a Research Fellow, Monash University
  •  is Senior Lecturer, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University
At the tail end of winter in 2015, the ground in the Wimmera in northwestern Victoria had been a little dry but conditions weren’t too bad for farmers. The crop season was going well.

The start of September looked promising. It was cool, and there were decent rains. One Wimmera lentil grower said, “As long as it doesn’t get too hot, we should actually be OK.”

A few weeks later, summer weather had arrived early. At the start of October, the soils were baked dry. Lentils and other pulse crops were devastated.

This kind of event, where drier-than-normal conditions transform into severe or extreme drought in the space of weeks, is called a “flash drought”.

While flash droughts are still not well understood, our research studies how they occur in Australia - which may help move us toward being able to warn of flash drought in advance.

The different kinds of drought

Scientists typically talk about drought as a lack or deficit of available moisture to meet various needs, such as in agriculture or for water resources. We often classify different types of drought depending on where there is a lack of water, or what its effects are:
  • meteorological drought is a deficit of rain or other precipitation
  • agricultural drought is a deficit of moisture in the soil and evaporating or transpiring into the air
  • hydrological drought is a deficit of water in runoff and surface storage such as dams
  • socioeconomic drought is a lack of water that affects the supply and demand of economic goods and services.
Different types of drought can occur at the same time, or a drought may evolve from one type to another. Droughts can last from months to decades, and can cover areas from a local region to most of the continent.

The different types of drought, showing how long they last and the size of the area they affect. Ailie GallantAuthor provided

Recently, a new characterisation of drought has been added to the drought spectrum: “flash” drought.

What causes flash droughts?

Flash droughts are droughts that begin suddenly and then rapidly become more intense. Droughts only occur when there is insufficient rainfall, but flash droughts intensify rapidly over timescales of weeks to months because of other factors such as high temperatures, low humidity, strong winds and clear skies.

These conditions make the air “thirsty”, which meteorologists call “increased evaporative demand”. This means more water evaporates from the surface and transpires from plants, and moisture in the soil is rapidly depleted.

Under these conditions, evaporation and transpiration increase for as long as moisture is available at the surface. When this moisture is depleted and there is no rain to replenish it, the lack of water limits evaporation and transpiration – and vegetation becomes stressed as drought emerges.

When there is a lack of rain accompanied by high temperature, low humidity, strong wind and clear skies, conditions are right for flash drought. Tess ParkerAuthor provided

Why haven’t we heard about flash drought before?

Flash droughts have always existed, and were first described in 2002. However, some particularly devastating flash droughts over the past decade have led to a surge of interest among researchers.

One such drought happened in the US Midwest. In May 2012, 30% of the continental United States was experiencing abnormally dry conditions. By August, that had extended to more than 60%. Although other rapidly developing droughts had been seen before, the widespread impacts of this event caught the attention of the US public and government.

Flash droughts are also increasingly a focus of attention in China and Australia. One of the few studies of flash drought in Australia examined an event when conditions in the country’s east suddenly changed from wet in December 2017, to dry in January 2018.

Anecdotal reports from farmers in the northern Murray–Darling Basin indicated removal of livestock from properties, and sheep numbers at record lows. By June 2018, there were reports of trees dying and a desert-like landscape, with little grass cover.

What happened in the Wimmera?

Our recent study of flash drought in Australia used several different measurements to capture a range of conditions related to drought.
  • precipitation describes the supply of moisture from the atmosphere to the surface
  • evaporative demand is the atmospheric demand for moisture from the surface
  • evaporative stress is the supply of moisture from the surface relative to the demand from the atmosphere
  • soil moisture is the wetness or dryness of the land surface.
The index we used to determine the atmospheric demand shows that the speed of development and the intensity of flash drought are driven by high temperatures, low humidity, strong winds and clear skies. All of these increase the demand for moisture from the surface.

After a drier than normal winter, southeast Australia experienced a cool and wet start to September 2015, with some rain in the first week of the month. Humidity and surface air pressure were roughly average, and surface sunshine below average, suggesting normal evaporative demand.

A warm spell began in mid-September, and intensified into a severe heatwave by early October, with temperatures over 35℃ persisting for several days in some areas. Throughout this period the overlying air became very dry. A persistent high-pressure system brought clear skies and increased sunshine.

By the end of October, the Wimmera was in severe or extreme drought conditions, devastating pulse and grain crops. Analysts estimated wheat production fell by 23%, with a loss of A$500 million in potential yields.

Flash drought in Australia

Flash droughts in Australia occur in all seasons. In the Wimmera, flash droughts are most frequent in summer and autumn. They can end as rapidly as they start, but in some cases may last many months.

In several instances, flash droughts in the Wimmera have started in summer or autumn, and the region has remained in drought through the following winter, and sometimes into spring. In this way, flash drought can be the catalyst for the common droughts lasting 6-12 months typical of southeast Australia.

But there is some potential good news. We have long known that seasonal-scale droughts in Australia are strongly related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which gives us some ability to predict them.

ENSO strongly affects rainfall, which means it can also be linked to flash droughts in winter and spring.

Further, sub-seasonal forecasting, which predicts the climatic conditions weeks to a month in advance, has improved considerably in recent years. Given flash droughts occur on these timescales, we can be optimistic that prediction of flash droughts may be possible

Links

(USA New Yorker) Automakers Start To Figure Out The Climate Future

The New Yorker

Bankers, not so much.

Last month, Ford released an electric version of its F-150, the most popular motor vehicle of all time. Photograph courtesy Ford

Author
Bill McKibben is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org and a contributing writer to The New Yorker. He writes The Climate Crisis, The New Yorker’s newsletter on the environment.
If you want to meet an expert who understands where the world is heading, may I introduce a bushy-bearded Australian coal miner who features anonymously in a video that was shared by the Sydney Morning Herald last week.

He is sitting behind the wheel of a borrowed Tesla when a man in the back seat urges him to “just plant it. Hard as you can.”

The man punches the accelerator, is immediately pushed back in his seat, and breaks into a grinning cackle. “Fucking got some go, eh?” the man says. “It’s just instant. Like, fuck,” the driver replies, beaming. (Watch it; you’ll feel happier afterward).

Many of the changes needed to get us on the right climate path are going to meet with resistance, but it’s beginning to look as if getting people to accept electric vehicles may not be one of them. Elon Musk has done pioneering work, but the Tesla has mainly been a niche product—the niche being early adopters of cool things who live along the coasts. (Life in Muskworld is getting a little silly: last month, he started touting a model with ten rocket thrusters that will go from zero to sixty in 1.1 seconds, which sounds like a very bad idea.)

Things got very real, though, with last month’s announcement of an electric version of the Ford F-150 pickup, America’s best-selling vehicle every year since the Reagan Administration, and the most popular motor vehicle of all time. Within seven days, the company had reported seventy thousand preorders—and the stock had jumped eight per cent.

Having spent most of my life in rural America, where the F-150 is ubiquitous, I can tell you why this is going to succeed. It’s not the acceleration; it’s the plugs. The electric version will basically be a battery on wheels. The “power frunk” (where the engine used to be) has several outlets, useful for all the power tools you might need if you’re not near another electrical source—if you’re building a home, say—and replacing the noisy, smelly, dangerous gas generators that no one likes.

You say that most pickup drivers are not, in fact, home builders? It’s true—most Americans have no need of a pickup at all. But watch any truck commercial and see who it stars. Once blue-collar America endorses the electric approach, suburbia will follow. We need far more than electric cars, of course: buses and bikes, not to mention paths for those bikes, are crucial. But since, right now, public transit accounts for about one per cent of passenger miles travelled, the new pickup paradigm seems critical.

And, in any event, the car companies seem all in. Last week, Ford announced that it was putting down thirty billion dollars in new spending on E.V.s; General Motors has already said that it will be nothing but electric by 2035. By contrast, the banking sector seems determined to have it both ways, trying to make money off both fossil fuels and a renewable future.

Late last month, President Biden issued an executive order on climate financial risk that begins by noting that “the failure of financial institutions to appropriately and adequately account for and measure these physical and transition risks threatens the competitiveness of U.S. companies and markets, the life savings and pensions of U.S. workers and families, and the ability of U.S. financial institutions to serve communities.”

That failure was visible on many fronts in recent days. Deutsche Bank put forward a detailed plan to cut its carbon emissions by, say, reducing “fuel consumption for its company car fleet in Germany (roughly 5,400 cars) by 30 percent by 2025.”

That sounds fine, but, as the campaigners at the German environmental and human-rights organization Urgewald have pointed out, such proposals “are also an embarrassing testament to the fact that the bank’s understanding of sustainability is stuck in the 90s.

The measures are easy to integrate and don’t harm anyone. However, they won’t have a significant impact either”—not, say, like the bank’s plan to coördinate the initial public offering for the oil-and-gas group Wintershall, which plans to boost its fossil-fuel output by thirty per cent by 2023.

Closer to home, the world’s biggest fossil-fuel financier, JPMorgan Chase, has announced plans to cut not the amount of carbon that its loans liberate from the ground but, rather, the “carbon intensity” of its portfolio.

This would permit it to keep making loans to companies that want to continue producing the same amount of oil and also allow it to vastly increase the amount of natural gas that they pump; gas is somewhat less carbon-intensive than oil, so this increase would slide right through this loophole.

At a House Committee on Financial Services hearing last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did her best to cut through this blatant greenwashing, and Jamie Dimon, the Chase C.E.O., seemed to say that the bank was working to cut absolute emissions in its portfolio as well—but for the moment the plans are secret.

If you’re wondering how much this matters: a new report shows that the carbon produced by the loans from British bankers alone would make them, if they were a country, the ninth-biggest emitter on earth.

It’s good news of a sort that so much is suddenly up in the air: the fallout from the various court rulings and shareholder votes of late May is less a blueprint for the future than a simple acknowledgment that something must change. Sticks are being stuck in hornets’ nests, and there’s some shrieking from the industry and its friends. (Check out the fifteen G.O.P. state treasurers threatening to withdraw state funds from banks that don’t lend to the oil industry.)

But, at least for the moment, the delighted laughter of a miner behind the wheel of an E.V. drowns out the noise.

Links

(The Guardian) Climate Crisis Is Suffocating The World’s Lakes, Study Finds

The Guardian -  

Falling oxygen levels harming already struggling wildlife and drinking water supplies, say scientists

Lake Ammersee near Munich, Bavaria, Germany. Oxygen levels in lakes have fallen three to nine times faster in the past 40 years. Photograph: Lukas Barth-Tuttas/EPA

The climate crisis is causing a widespread fall in oxygen levels in lakes across the world, suffocating wildlife and threatening drinking water supplies.

Falling levels of oxygen in oceans had already been identified, but new research shows that the decline in lakes has been between three and nine times faster in the past 40 years. Scientists found oxygen levels had fallen by 19% in deep waters and 5% at the surface.

Rising temperatures driven by global heating is the main cause, because warmer water cannot hold as much oxygen. Furthermore, rising summer heat leaves the top layer of lakes hotter and less dense than the waters below, meaning mixing is reduced and oxygen supply to the depths falls.

Oxygen levels have increased at the surface of some lakes. But this is most likely due to higher temperatures driving algal blooms, which can also produce dangerous toxins.

Cutting emissions to tackle the climate crisis is vital, the scientists said, as well as cutting the use of farm fertiliser and urban sewage pollution that also damages lakes.

“All complex life depends on oxygen and so, when oxygen levels drop, you really decrease the habitat for many different species.” said Prof Kevin Rose, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in the US, who was part of the research team.

“This study proves that the problem is even more severe in fresh waters [than in oceans], threatening our drinking water supplies and the delicate balance that enables complex freshwater ecosystems to thrive,” said Curt Breneman, RPI’s dean of science.

Freshwater habitats are rich in fish, insects, birds and animals, and are important for food and recreation for humans. But they have already suffered great damage, with average wildlife populations having fallen by 84% since 1970. In addition to global heating and pollution, the causes include overuse of water for farming.

The study, published in the journal Nature, analysed 45,000 dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles collected from nearly 400 lakes worldwide. Most records started in about 1980, though one went back to 1941.

Most of the lakes were in temperate zones, particularly in Europe and the US, but there were a few records from higher latitudes, nearer the poles, and for tropical lakes in Africa. In both cases, oxygen was falling as in the other lakes.

In lakes where oxygen levels have fallen to almost zero, phosphorus can be drawn out of sediments, providing an essential nutrient for bacteria. These can proliferate and produce the powerful greenhouse gas methane, driving further heating.

Oxygen levels in surface waters were increasing in about a fifth of the lakes studied, almost all of which were prone to pollution. This is an indicator of widespread increases in algal blooms, said Rose. “Without taxonomic data, we can’t say that definitively, but nothing else we’re aware of can explain this pattern.”

Global temperatures are still rising, pushing lake oxygen levels ever lower, so just keeping the status quo requires action to clean up freshwater bodies.

Rose said a positive example was Oneida Lake in New York state, where a clean-up led to better water clarity, which in turn allowed more photosynthesis from oxygen-producing algae.

60% of fish species could be unable to survive in current areas by 2100 – study. Read more
“The new study provides a much-needed global overview of what happens in the limited freshwater stores of the planet – their health is a prime concern,” said Prof Hans-Otto Poertner, of the Alfred-Wegener-Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany, who was not part of the team.

Lakes are isolated and small compared with oceans, in which global currents can still provide oxygen to deeper waters, he said.

“Climate change, together with [agricultural pollution], threatens vulnerable freshwater systems, adding to the urgency to strongly cut emissions,” Poertner said.

Links

04/06/2021

(AU SMH) The Sleeper Election Issue That Could Bite Morrison And Albanese

Sydney Morning HeraldJohn Hewson

Author
Dr John Hewson AM is an honorary professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, and is a former leader of the Liberal party.
Scott Morrison has rightly followed the science and medical advice in responding to COVID-19. If his government hadn’t closed our borders, and the states hadn’t enforced lockdowns and social distancing, imagine the catastrophe.

The Prime Minister quantified it recently when he said Australia had avoided 30,000 COVID deaths. That compares with the 910 deaths caused by the pandemic to date. “I’m not going to take risks with Australian lives,” Morrison said.

Australia’s Black Summer is cited as a warning on the costs of inaction on climate change. Credit: Nick Moir

His government is not treating the hard climate science with the same urgency, although it has been developed over many more decades than the more rudimentary medical science it relied upon in responding to the pandemic.

Last month, the International Energy Agency, a long-time mouthpiece for fossil fuels, called for a global halt to new coal and gas ventures. At the same time, the Morrison government committed to spending $600 million of taxpayers’ money on a new gas-fired power plant in NSW’s Hunter Valley.

Inaction on climate change presents us with real costs – in lives, livelihoods and the lost economic growth that would come with sustainable industries and jobs.

Economist Nicki Hutley has summarised some of the likely consequences of inaction: “The cost of extreme weather disasters in Australia has doubled since the ’70s, reaching $35 billion over the decade to 2018-19. Economic damages per person are around seven times the global average.”

Paris Agreement
NAB chief ‘taking into account’ landmark climate report in oil and gas policy
The recent Black Summer fires are estimated to have cost about $100 billion – 14 times the economic and social costs of the 2009 Black Saturday fires.

Health costs are just starting to be recognised and counted. Hutley reports that the 2011 heatwave “saw a 14 per cent rise in ambulance call-outs and a 13 per cent increase in excess deaths”.

Particulate emissions from dirty petrol have been reported to kill multiples of the road toll each year.

Research from the Australian National University and the University of Melbourne suggests economic losses from climate change in a few decades could be like a COVID-sized economic shock every year. A similar prognosis has been suggested by modelling for the NSW government.

Australia also runs the genuine risk that, as a global climate laggard, significant trading partners will levy carbon border taxes on our exports, costing billions in lost revenue and thousands of lost jobs.

Paris Agreement
Politicians have duty of care to protect children from climate harm, court finds
The benefits of an effective and just transition, meanwhile, are supported by Deloitte, Beyond Zero, the Climate Council and many more in Australia, and by strategies adopted globally, including in the United States, Canada, Britain and Europe.

While Joe Biden and Boris Johnson push for greater emissions reductions, investor pressure mounts on fossil fuel companies.

Shell was ordered by a Dutch court to slash its emissions; 61 per cent of Chevron shareholders backed a resolution to force an emissions reduction; and an activist hedge fund won two seats on the ExxonMobil board.

Australia’s Federal Court found, in assessing a new coal mine, that our Environment Minister had a “duty of care” to younger people to avoid causing them personal injury from climate change. Expect more class actions against governments on climate.

Disturbingly, Australia’s two major political parties are engrossed in a race to the bottom on climate change, seeing who can be less specific about targets and commitments.

Paris Agreement
Mathias Cormann calls for ‘ambitious’ plan to reach net zero emissions
With the prospect of an early federal election this year, there is growing interest in running independents in key seats, focusing heavily on climate issues.

In an online independents’ convention in March, 80 electorates were represented. In 38 electorates there are community-based groups under the banner of Voices, and movements such as “Vote Angus Taylor Out”.

Clearly, independents will not be elected in all these seats, but they may well claim enough seats to swing the balance of power.

As the philosopher Karl Popper said, the party system robs individual politicians of responsibility, “makes [them] a voting machine rather than a thinking feeling person … what we need in politics are individuals who can judge on their own and who are prepared to carry personal responsibility”.

Scott Morrison will no doubt attempt to keep the election focus on his handling of the pandemic and the economy, capitalising on his poll superiority to Labor leader Anthony Albanese.

The sleeper election issue of climate may have to be carried by the independents.

The Prime Minister would be wise to remember the Wentworth byelection.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative