Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 September 2019

The Lower Hutt scientist who found proof of climate change 50 years ago


This is significant to me because this pioneering scientist is living no more than a mile from me and Baring Head is close to us as well.

Dave Lowe found 
measurable proof of climate 
change 50 years ago - he's 
watched in horror ever since

Dave Lowe has been involved in collecting atmospheric data in Wellington since before the term 'climate change' even existed.
Stuff.co,nz,
21 September, 2019

Dave Lowe established the Baring Head air monitoring station, helped prove human-driven climate change and contributed to the winning of a Nobel Peace Prize. Along the way were countless arguments with climate change deniers, a lost marriage, and one significant regret. Joel MacManus met him.
There's a certificate on the wall of Dave Lowe's small cottage in Petone, Wellington.
It's tucked away in the back office, an A3 piece of paper in an ordinary wooden frame.
It could easily be missed by a passing guest. But if they cared to take a second glance, three words would immediately jump out: Nobel Peace Prize.
It's the 2007 Prize, awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lowe was a lead author on their largest-ever report.

It was by far the greatest honour of his career. He resigned almost immediately afterward, walking away on top of the scientific world.


The Prize is a testament to all that he has achieved in his career, but at the same time, to him, it's a haunting reminder of all the things he didn't, or couldn't, change.

Sitting at his kitchen table, reflecting on the prize, he goes a little glassy-eyed. He stares intently at nothing in particular. His voice drops an octave.

"I've lived this horror for 50 years," he says. "There's so little time left and we've just been so bloody stupid."

Dave Lowe was one of the first people on earth to find measurable proof that human activities were changing the atmosphere and warming the planet.

For the past 50 years, he has watched on, helpless and frustrated, as the situation around him has got worse, and worse, and worse.


A VOLCANO ABOVE THE CLOUDS

The long, sloping sides of Mauna Loa, seen from the summit of its sister mountain, Mauna Kea.
The long, sloping sides of Mauna Loa, seen from the summit of its sister mountain, Mauna Kea.

The world's largest volcano dominates the skyline of Hawaii's Big Island. The huge, sloping sides and gigantic crater of Mauna Loa cast an imposing shadow and send a constant warning across the Pacific paradise.

The Ancient Hawaiians believed Mauna Loa was created by the volcano goddess Pele, who formed it at such an immense height so she could escape the wrath of her sister Nāmaka, the sea goddess.

According to one legend, Pele is accompanied by a phantom white dog. When an eruption was soon to occur, she would send her dog down the mountain to warn the people of the impending disaster.

In 1958, an American scientist named Charles David Keeling climbed Mauna Loa, and changed the world's understanding of our climate forever.

Keeling had spent the better part of the 1950s perfecting a system of measuring exactly how much of which gases make up the Earth's atmosphere.

By adapting gas analysers used in coal mines, he was able to take the first ever reliable reading of the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

The barren mountainside on the edge of the Mauna Loa crater, high above the cloud layer and away from any interference, proved the perfect location to capture the swirling air currents.

It was here, in two simple grey buildings set against a desolate, otherworldly landscape, that Keeling established the world's first permanent station to measure CO2 levels.

The gas analyser splits a sample of air into one million parts, and counts how many of those are CO2.

The first measurement Keeling took read 313 parts per million.

Then, as he continued to take regular readings, he saw something no-one had ever seen before. The planet was breathing.

In autumn, as the leaves died off the trees, the amount of CO2 in the air would rise. Then in spring, as the plants grew again,the number would fall again. In and out, like lungs exhaling.

Then, when a full year had gone by and the cycle was complete, he checked the number again. It never returned to 313.
.
Now, it sat at 314 ppm. He had just uncovered the first piece of evidence that the total amount of CO2 in the air was increasing.

That matters because CO2 has an insulating effect in the atmosphere. It traps heat, which is why it's called a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more heat.

Every year without fail, for the last 61 years, the number has continued to climb at an ever-increasing rate.

The chart which tracks the rising CO2, that drumbeat on the march to climate breakdown, is called the Keeling Curve.

Some would say that the legends of Mauna Loa are true. Pele's white dog has become Keeling's gas analyzer, high in the mountains among the ancient volcanic rock, sending out a warning signal to tell the people of the coming disaster.

Charles David Keeling received the National Medal of Science from then-US President George W Bush in 2002.
Charles David Keeling received the National Medal of Science from then-US President George W Bush in 2002.
A WORLDWIDE SEARCH

While Keeling was tracking the first evidence of climate change on a Hawaiian volcano, Dave Lowe was a teenage high school dropout in Taranaki, with only one thing on this mind: surfing.

The sport was in its infancy in New Zealand, primitive wooden longboards were the only equipment available. But Lowe was hooked.

"There was just a small bunch of us, really weird characters, and I was just fascinated with it," he says.

"You go out there and man, do you get a feeling for the environment. I saw the atmosphere directly, going down into the ocean, mixing the sounds, the smells."

Sitting on his board, staring out at the mist and the ocean spray dancing against the pink hues of the setting sun, he decided he needed to understand more about the world around him. He went back to school and earned a Physics honours degree from Victoria University of Wellington.

Lowe and Keeling's paths would cross for the first time in 1970.

By this time, Keeling was a giant in his field. But he wasn't satisfied with his research station at Mauna Loa. One measurement at one specific location wasn't enough evidence. He wanted a global record, in both hemispheres, so he could confirm what he was seeing, and track it for future decades.

Lowe was a 23-year-old graduate at the former Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, recruited to join Keeling's team as they set up the world's second continuous record of atmospheric CO2.

They found a spot about 30 minutes out of Wellington city, near Makara Beach, at the World War II-era gun emplacements of Fort Opau.


After six months training in California, Lowe returned to join the small American team of one scientist and two technicians.

But pretty soon he found himself with far more responsibility than he expected.

"The scientist would constantly just bugger off back to San Diego for six months at a time. And the technicians, well ... They were being paid to have the holiday of their lives, they were always off hunting and fishing, not to speak of the marijuana.

"I was thrown in the deep end trying to run hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear on a really important project which is being funded millions by the National Science Foundation."

But that work was for nothing. The readings at Makara were erratic, showing wild swings and no discernable pattern. They were useless.

There was about a kilometre of paddocks between the sea and the analyzer, which was sucking up too much CO2 and throwing off the readings.

Keeling told him he needed to develop a new portable gas analyzer and find a new location, undisturbed by vegetation or outside sources.

After some searching, Lowe found the spot he was looking for at Baring Head, a peninsula an hour out of Wellington in the opposite direction, at the base of the Remutaka Forest Park.

The Baring Head lighthouse and research station in 1972. Air samples were taken at the top of the flagpole and atmospheric CO2 concentration was measured by an infra red analyser in the building.
The Baring Head lighthouse and research station in 1972. Air samples were taken at the top of the flagpole and atmospheric CO2 concentration was measured by an infra red analyser in the building.
DAVE LOWE


It was perfect. At the right time, Baring Head gets air currents directly from Antarctica, an incredible undisturbed run through hundreds of kilometres of the Southern Ocean.

"What we got was incredible. Right from the outset you could see that we had struck gold."

The first they learned was that Baring Head always measured a few ppm behind Mauna Loa. The majority of emissions are produced in the northern hemisphere, this showed that it took time for those gases to spread to the south.

They also found that Baring Head didn't show the same huge seasonal swings as the Mauna Loa readings. The huge continents of vegetation in the northern hemisphere were impacting the Hawaiian readings, but the measurements in the South Pacific, surrounded by ocean, were far more stable.

But the most important thing was that the measurements at Baring Head proved that Mauna Loa wasn't an anomaly. In both the south and the north, the carbon in the atmosphere was slowly rising.

Dave Lowe taking an air flask sample at the edge of the Baring Head cliff in 1972.
Dave Lowe taking an air flask sample at the edge of the Baring Head cliff in 1972.

James Renwick is a professor of geology at Victoria University, who was also a contributor to the 2007 Nobel Prize and received last year's Prime Minister's Science Prize.

He says Lowe is "a bit of a legend in NZ atmospheric science", and his contributions to the global record of climate change were invaluable.

"At the time I suspect it wasn't appreciated just how important the Baring Head Station was, but now the climate science community really values the long time series from Baring Head.

"That's very significant," he says. "They are a part of a global network of observing sites that have taught us many things. Dave Lowe has been a real pioneer in atmospheric science in NZ, especially around measurement of greenhouse gases and in understanding the chemistry of the atmosphere and how that's changing."

THE GRIND

Finding himself in charge of a groundbreaking research with barely any experience, Lowe put everything on his own shoulders.

Together with his friend and colleague Peter Gunther, they were basically running the entire southern arm of the operation alone, and they were fully aware of how important their work was.

Dave Lowe in 1973 at the DSIR Institute of Nuclear Sciences laboratories in Gracefield, Lower Hutt.
Dave Lowe in 1973 at the DSIR Institute of Nuclear Sciences laboratories in Gracefield, Lower Hutt.


That meant constant flights between Wellington and California, reading every background paper that had ever been written on the subject, developing all the computer programs to drive the calculations.

The DSIR lab, where he was working, had one computer, an IBM 650 with paper tape inputs and magnetic tape.

"We worked our butts off," he says. "I knew that I just had to do this. I threw everything I had into it"

But that intensity had its consequences. Eventually, something had to give.

American scientist Peter Gunther, who worked with Lowe at Baring Head throughout the 70s.
American scientist Peter Gunther, who worked with Lowe at Baring Head throughout the 70s.


"I just kept on going as my marriage crashed. I was a real mess. A hell of a mess. I was working too hard, and completely blown apart emotionally.

"The guy I was working for took a look at me and said 'Dave, you're no good to me at all in your condition'."


PROOF OR PERSUASION


In 1975, Lowe took a sabbatical to recover from his professional and personal blowout. He attended the first ever scientific conference of greenhouse gas experts. He reckons he's probably the only person at the meeting who is still alive.

The small group knew what was coming before anyone else in the world.

They had proven that mankind was changing the chemical makeup of the air, and they knew the inevitable outcome of that.

The terms 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change' hadn't been invented yet, but that's exactly what they were seeing.

In the following years, Lowe moved to Germany to study further, and met his now-wife Irena. They've been married for 40 years.

He specialised in isotopic techniques, which he describes as like DNA tracing for gas particles.

Not all the CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. For most of human history, the CO2 level has naturally fluctuated between 200 and 300ppm, which we know thanks to air samples trapped in glacier ice cores.

Those natural fluctuations are often cited by climate deniers to suggest that climate change is not man-made.

Naturally occurring carbon is made up of different isotopes. The most common types are called Carbon-12 and Carbon-13.

Carbon-12 is by far the most common type found in nature. Carbon-13 makes up about 1 per cent of the total.

But the exact amount can differ. There is slightly less Carbon-13 in fossil fuels like coal and oil compared to in atmospheric carbon.

The sun setting behind the Baring Head. Atmospheric carbon measurements are still taken there to this day.
NICHOLAS BOYACK/STUFF
The sun setting behind the Baring Head. Atmospheric carbon measurements are still taken there to this day

Lowe and other international researchers found that while total CO2 in the air was increasing, the percentage of Carbon-13 isotopes compared to Carbon-12 was decreasing.


That proved that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere was coming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans, not anything else.

"That's the smoking gun. You can get every sceptic blue in the face but that's just open and shut evidence that this extra CO2 came from humans," he says.

"Unequivocal, no doubt."

That was proof, settled science. But the battle to convince the public of his findings was only just beginning.

Why exactly are "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes" needed to combat climate change? Here are the facts.

Part of the problem was that the predicted temperature rise didn't show up for several years.

While CO2 was rising, the mercury was jumping up and down, with no consistency. But eventually, the signal separated from the noise and the heat started to climb. Once it did, it basically never stopped.

In hindsight, the conservative approach of the scientific community probably held progress back for a number of years, he says.

"As a scientists, we thought, 'No, you don't jump up and down and scream, we're not activists.' Losing our credibility was the big issue.

"It was a totally different time. If only I knew then what I know now ... Now it's different, many of us are out there doing stuff. We have to, this is an emergency."

Full-blown arguments with climate change deniers have been a common occurrence in Lowe's life. His voice bristles with frustration when the topic comes up.

"It's better now, but it was hard yards. I'd be yelled at by people. It used to be constant shouting matches with sceptics.

"[Scientists] deal in data and facts and graphs and numbers, it's really hard to get through with that. In my lifetime I've given hundreds of climate change talks and you're always up against it with this distrust."

Nothing grinds his gears more than scientists in the 1980s and 1990s who deliberately spread mistruths about climate change while on the payrolls of oil companies, like Fred Singer and others profiled in the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt.

"I just think … the bastard, how dare he not look at the facts. That makes me angry, people who deliberately go out and falsify what's going on."

Dave Lowe has retired and now lives in Petone. He's still active in the climate science community and lives a low-emissions lifestyle.
Dave Lowe has retired and now lives in Petone. He's still active in the climate science community and lives a low-emissions lifestyle.

After resigning, Lowe started his own small family business, consulting and doing climate change education.

After his children left home, he and Irena moved into their small cottage, which they meticulously designed to have the smallest possible carbon footprint.

He's still actively involved in climate science, making submissions on bills and helping with various research work. He's working on a book about his life work.

Every day as he sits down to write, that Nobel Peace Prize certificate hangs behind him.

"I just wish ... all of us wish, that we could have changed minds," he says.

"But how do you fight an oil company?"

The first ever CO2 reading at Baring Head was 326 Parts Per Million. The most recent reading was 409 Parts Per Million.

Thursday, 7 March 2019

What does tthe IPCC leave out of the equations?


HOW MUCH WARMING IS THERE NOW?

Sam Carana, via Facebook

According to NOAA's calculations, we're currently at 500 CO₂e. NOAA adds: 

"Because we seek an index that is accurate, only direct forcing from these gases has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included. Other spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone, have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here to maintain accuracy."


How much warming do you think there is, when including all feedbacks, indirect effects and further warming elements?

This appeared in comments


No photo description available.

NOAA includes 5 major gases (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, CFC-12 and CFC-11) and 15 halogenated gases (CFC-113, CCl₄, CH₃CCl₃, HCFCs 22, 141b and 142b, HFCs 134a, 152a, 23, 143a, and 125, SF₆, and halons 1211, 1301 and 2402). 

The figure of 500 CO₂e is arrived at when taking NOAA's column for total CO₂e in Table 2, which goes up to 2017, and extending this by means of a linear trend, as in attached image.

Monday, 29 October 2018

Guy McPherson interviewed by Jamarl Thomas


Not all interviews with Guy are equal. This one is a stunner.

Guy McPherson Discusses UN Climate Change Report & Trump Admin 7 Degrees By 2100



Part one was recorded a few weeks ago
 

Sunday, 14 October 2018

The IPCC bends over backward in efforts to keep feeding the addiction.


IPCC keeps feeding the addiction



Arctic News,

13 October, 2018



The IPCC just released its report Global Warming of 1.5ºC. Things aren't looking good and instead of providing good advice and guidance, the IPCC bends over backward in efforts to keep feeding the addiction.

The Paris Agreement constitutes a joint commitment by all nations of the world to keep the temperature rise below 1.5ºC. The IPCC should have honored this commitment by explaining that the situation is dire and by pointing at action to be taken to improve the situation.

Instead, the IPCC bends over backward to make it look as if temperatures were lower than they really are, in an effort to make it look as if there were carbon budgets to be divided, and polluters should be allowed to keep polluting until those budgets had run out. This is like saying that drug junkies who cause damage and are deeply in debt, should be handed over more OPM (other people's money, in this case the future of all people and other species).

In reality, there is no carbon budget to be divided, there is just a huge carbon debt to be repaid. The urgency and imperative to act is such that progress in one area cannot make up for delays elsewhere. The best policies should be implemented immediately, and everywhere across the world.

Use of terms such as trade-offs, net-outcomes, off-sets, carbon budgets and negative emissions is misguided and highly misleading. Policies based on giving and trading in permits to pollute are less effective than local feebates, i.e. polices that impose fees on sales of polluting products and then use the revenues to support rebates on the better alternatives sold locally.

Here are twelve instances where the IPCC is misleading:

  1. Changing the baseline set at the Paris Agreement
    While the Paris Agreement is clear that pre-industrial is to be used as baseline, the IPCC has instead chosen to use 1850-1900, a period when the Industrial Revolution had long started. This compromises the entire Paris Agreement and thus the integrity of us all. Temperatures may well have been 0.3ºC higher in 1900 than in 1750, as depicted in above image in the light blue block. Add up the warming elements and it may well be that people have caused more than 2ºC of warming already and that we're facing warming of more than 10ºC by 2026.

  2. Misleading calculations and wording
    The IPCC suggests that warming caused by people is 1.0°C (±0.2°C), likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052. To reach these numbers, the IPCC used misleading calculations in efforts to downplay how dangerous the situation is, as discussed further below. As an example of misleading wording, the IPCC says it has high confidence that 1.5°C won't be reached until 2030 if warming continues to increase at the current rate of 0.2°C per decade. Sure, if warming was 1.0°C and if it was indeed warming at 0.2°C per decade and if that warming would continue at 0.2°C per decade, yes, then it would take 25 years for warming to reach 1.5°C. But the reality is that warming is already far more than 1.0°C and that it is accelerating. That makes it misleading to associate high confidence with the suggestion that warming will not reach 1.5°C until 2030. The use of a straight line (linear trend) is misleading in the first place, since warming is accelerating. The use of a straight line is even more misleading when such a straight line is then used to make projections into the future and qualifications such as high confidence are added.

  3. Ignoring the importance of peaks
    Daily and monthly peaks are obviously higher than annual averages, and it's those high peaks that kill, making it disrespectful toward past and future victims of extreme weather events to average that away. NASA records show that, in February 2016, it was on average 1.67ºC warmer than in 1900 (i.e. a 30-year period centered around 1900), while the higher latitudes North had anomalies up to 10.8ºC. On land, the average anomaly in February 2016 was 2.26ºC. And this is before adding 0.3ºC for the rise before 1900, and before further adjustments as discussed below. Conservatively, the magenta block at the top of above image shows a rise of 1.63ºC.

  4. Cherry-picking the baseline period
    For a baseline of a 30-year period around the year 1900, the temperature rise to 2016/2017 was 1.22ºC, NASA records show. When adding another 0.3ºC rise for the rise before 1900, warming was well above 1.5ºC in 2016/2017. However, the IPCC conveniently selects an 1850-1900 baseline, a period when it was relatively warm, i.e. warmer than in 1750 and warmer also than in 1900. It was warmer from 1850 to 1900 due to increasing livestock numbers and forests clearing, while huge amounts of wood were burned, all contributing to large emissions of black carbon, brown carbon, methane, CO, etc., which caused additional warming during this period. So, this period was relatively warm. There was little impact yet of the sulfur aerosols that started coming with burning fossil fuel from 1900. Choosing this baseline period enabled the IPCC to beef up the temperature for the baseline and then draw a linear trend from 1850-1900 that looks flatter.

  5. Changing the data
    The U.K. Met Office's HadCRUT dataset goes back to 1850. The IPCC used this dataset, but actually changed the data, by averaging the data with datasets that showed a similar rise for the years after 1900, but that showed higher warming for 1880-1900. This enabled the IPCC to further beef up the average temperature for the period 1850-1900 and then draw a linear trend from 1850-1900 that looks even flatter.

  6. Cherry-picking the type of data
    To further support its suggestions, the IPCC uses water surface data for ocean temperature, but uses air data for temperatures over land. When selecting datasets with more consistency and using air temperatures globally, the temperature rise is 0.1ºC higher.

  7. Not using new techniques to estimate values for missing data
    The IPCC chooses not to use new techniques to estimate temperatures where data are missing. Less data are available for the Arctic, and this is precisely where temperatures have risen much faster than in the rest of the world. When values for missing data are included, the temperature rise is another 0.1ºC higher.

  8. Leaving out 2016
    The IPCC suggests there was a temperature rise of 0.2ºC per decade in the years up to 2015, as if the high temperatures in 2016 didn't occur. The IPCC then uses that 0.2ºC rise to make projections into the future, conveniently skipping the high temperatures in 2016. Failure to properly address acceleration of future warming is further discussed in the point below.

  9. Failure to properly address dangerous developments
    The IPCC fails to point out that carbon dioxide reaches a maximum in warming the atmosphere some 10 years after emission, which means that the full wrath of global warming due to the very high emissions of carbon dioxide over the past decade is yet to come. While temperatures could rise very rapidly over the coming decade, the IPCC keeps talking about carbon budgets, without properly addressing tipping points such as the decline of the snow and ice cover that will result in huge albedo losses, jet stream changes, more and more extreme weather events, and more. The IPCC fails to point out the danger of destabilization of sediments containing methane in the form of hydrates and free gas. Furthermore, the IPCC fails to properly address the aerosol warming that will occur as sulfur emissions decrease and other aerosols increase such as black carbon, brown carbon, etc. The IPCC fails to mention the water vapor feedback, i.e. the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere that will occur as a result of these developments. Since water vapor itself is a potent greenhouse gas, this will speed up the temperature rise even further. These developments could lead to a potential global temperature rise (from 1750) of more than 10ºC by 2026, as illustrated in the image at the top.

  10. There is no carbon budget left
    Instead of pointing at the dangers, as it should have done, the IPCC makes it look as if there was a remaining carbon budget that should be divided among polluters, as if they should continue polluting the world. It should be obvious that there is no such budget. Instead, there's only a huge and very dangerous carbon debt. There is no room for trade-offs or offsets, and terms such as negative emissions are also inappropriate. All efforts should be made to cut emissions, including ending current subsidies for fossil fuel and livestock, while at the same time great effort should be taken to remove carbon from the atmosphere and oceans. And even then, it's questionable whether any humans will be able to survive the coming decade, which will be critically dangerous for all species on Earth.

  11. Suggesting polluting pathways
    The pathways suggested by the IPCC keep fossil fuel in the picture for many years, while highlighting non-solutions such as BEECS. The IPCC makes it look as if coal-fired power plants could continue to operate, by burning more biomass and capturing carbon. The IPCC makes it look as if transport could continue to use internal combustion engines, by burning more biofuel. Instead, clean & renewable energy has many benefits, including that it's more economic, so air capture powered by such facilities would make more sense than BEECS. Furthermore, electric vehicles should be supported now, rather than in the year 2050. It makes sense to stop fossil fuel subsidies, and to support better diets, to plant more vegetation and to support ways to add carbon and nutrients to soils and oceans, such as with biochar and ground rocks. Many technologies have been proposed, e.g. refrigerators and freezers are now made that do not use gases for cooling. The IPCC should not have used pathways that are wrong in the first place. Instead, the IPCC should have pointed at the policies that can best facilitate the necessary transitions, because the scientific evidence is overwhelming and it's the right thing to do.
  12. Not pointing at the best and much-needed policy tools
    The IPCC report fails to point out that imposing fees on polluting products is the most effective policy instrument, the more so when the revenues are used to support rebates on better alternatives supplied locally.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described at the Climate Plan.






Links

• IPCC special report Global Warming of 1.5ºC
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/

• Paris Agreement
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/12/paris-agreement.html
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008831
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Feedbacks
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• Can we weather the Danger Zone?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/07/can-we-weather-the-danger-zone.html

• How much warmer is it now?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-much-warmer-is-it-now.html

• 100% clean, renewable energy is cheaper
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/02/100-clean-renewable-energy-is-cheaper.html

• Fridges and freezers that don't use gases
https://www.facebook.com/groups/geoengineering/permalink/1794122703977728

• Negative-CO2-emissions ocean thermal energy conversion
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211830532X

• 'Electrogeochemistry' captures carbon, produces fuel, offsets ocean acidification
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/06/electrogeochemistry-captures-carbon-produces-fuel-offsets-ocean-acidification.html

• Olivine weathering to capture CO2 and counter climate change
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/olivine-weathering-to-capture-co2-and-counter-climate-change.html

• Biochar group at facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/biochar

• Aerosols
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/aerosols.html

• IPCC seeks to downplay global warming
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/02/ipcc-seeks-to-downplay-global-warming.html

• Blue Ocean Event
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/09/blue-ocean-event.html

Saturday, 13 October 2018

Peter Wadhams on the IPCC Report

Extended EXCLUSIVE with Peter Wadhams on IPCC SR 1.5 Report


UPFSI

Here is the extended version Peter Wadhams' views on the latest IPCC SR 1.5 Report. While the sense of urgency they transmit is much more realistic, they are still underestimating. There is still over-reliance on models that omit certain feedbacks. While they are sincere in their work, we have to remember the pressures placed upon them by the policy makers they are supposed to advise.

Friday, 12 October 2018

Paul Beckwith on the IPCC Report

Abrupt Climate Change Will Rapidly Blow Past 1.5C and 2C





As I filmed today, yet another massive hurricane has just come ashore in Florida’s panhandle. Hurricane Michael, at 155 mph (1 mph shy of Cat. 5) appeared almost out of nowhere and strengthened rapidly in the way too-warm Gulf of Mexico. 

This video is not just on this storm, but primarily on the human/media/global storm that has arisen with the release of the IPCC 1.5C report on our present state of the climate system, and whether or not we can keep global temperature rise to 1.5C or even to 2C. 

My preliminary thoughts are within; detailed video analysis will follow; please support my efforts by donating to http://paulbeckwith.net

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Nicholas Humphrey on the IPCC report


The Difficulties of Averting Catastrophic Climate Change
Nicholas Humphrey

9 October, 2018
So I read the Special Report on stabilizing global warming at 1.5 degrees C/2.7 degrees F by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. The report was released Sunday Night. Here are just a few takeaways. 

- 1.5 C is much worse than that thought when compared to 2 C/3.6 F...which is extreme. 1.5 C is a catastrophe for many ecosystems, with harms to human agriculture. 2 C is the beginning to truly extreme impacts with extinction of corals, major declines in insects, marine species and land vertebrates. 

-The hottest days over land areas will be 3 C (5.4 F) hotter at 1.5 C and 4 C (7.2 F) hotter at 2 C. and coldest days at high latitudes will be 4.5 C ( 8.1 F) warmer at 1.5 C and 6 C (10.8 F) warmer at 2 C. Heat gets much worse and cold is extraordinarily diminished. 

-The duration and intensity of drought and heavy precipitation will be much worse at 2 C than at 1.5 C. 

-Sea level rise is expected to be around 0.25-0.75 meters by 2100 with 1.5 C warming and around 0.1 meters high at 2 C warming.

-A 45% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is relative to 2010 levels (58% relative to 2015 according to climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf) is required by 2030 and with zero net emissions by 2050 and "negative emissions" afterward. Negative emission is removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Assumed to remove 100-1000 gigatons of it during the remainder of the 21st century. 
---------------------
Now here are some things I have to say about the report. 

--It does seem to come full circle in terms of acknowledging the seriousness of the lower temperature thresholds at causing more catastrophic impacts to human and natural systems on Earth. The 1990 UN Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases discussed the 1 degree C limit and the likelihood for nonlinear responses and feedback loops to kick in once such a value was routinely reached. While obviously scientists raised the bar to 2 C then began to emphasize increasingly 1.5 C to the emphasize the needs of island and subtropical nations' concerns with regards to sea level rise and agriculture, the IPCC has acknowledged that the Earth has warmed by about 1 degree C since the mid-19th century (which is used to approximate pre-industrial temperatures). 

--The mitigation efforts of the IPCC continue to be based purely on human emissions and simply neglect too many things which a) are more difficult to model but b) will likely severely detriment carbon "budgets"...the amount of carbon still considered for humans to burn into the atmosphere to keep temperatures at or below a certain temperature threshold. 

These include:
Carbon emissions from land and permafrost (potentially massive)
Carbon emissions from wetlands
The IPCC does mention that these caveats in the report. Do a couple sentences count?



--As the discussion around solving climate change continues to revolve around human emissions, what perhaps few realize is that it is not only about what is being done now, but what has been done in the past. As carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, the effects of warming are prolonged. There is currently 410 parts per million of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere plus other non-CO2 gases adding significant effects. This means in order to stabilize temperatures at 1.5 degrees C, humanity must not only reduce current emissions, but remove carbon dioxide from past emissions out of the atmosphere and store it. There must be net negative emissions. 

The problem is no such technology exists at the scales required to extract a trace gas in the billions of tons and store it (learn more here). There is also the problem of the the fact that a significant amount of energy (fossil fuels) will be required to build (and perhaps power?) the infrastructure on a global scale to remove the pollution which will contribute further greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (which will need to be removed as well). 

Right now, we have 410 parts per million concentration of carbon dioxide and rising, plus the rising methane and nitrous oxide (and other very small but powerful greenhouse gases) which are simply too much to stabilize global warming at 1.5 C in the long term. Or 2 C. Or 2.5 C. In fact, Dr. Peter Carter, a climate scientist based in British Columbia estimates the 2017 total greenhouse gas concentration equivalent locks in a long-term global mean surface temperature of 2.6 C (meaning without no new emissions or carbon removal).

-Global Dimming is probably the nonexistent topic in global climate change discussion, but one of the most important. Basically industrial burning produces particulates which are blown around the atmosphere and reflect solar radiation back into space, cooling the surface. Sulfates have been a major agent. Research shows that reductions in aerosols may lead to additional warming of 1-2 C (1-3 C over land areas). So reduce emissions in the process of trying to get off of fossil fuels and you end up reducing aerosols which induces further global "brightening", accelerating global warming further. And as aerosols fall out of the atmosphere within weeks to months after industrial activity ends, it ends to be a very abrupt and rapid response by the climate system in terms of temperature and precipitation. 

And speaking of which, there is little discussion of the increasing potential destabilization of the weather in the climate system outside of precipitation. And sea level rise mentioned above is likely severely underestimated.  

So, to conclude...as the scientists behind the report have stated...technically, it is within the laws of physics and chemistry to accomplish what is necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. However, in order for humans to fix the problem, they would need to have the technical feasibility to 1) create an entirely new energy infrastructure as rapidly as possible, 2) create an infrastructure to remove and store the the pollution of the previous energy infrastructure as rapidly as possible, 3) and do so while using the very same greenhouse gas (and other) polluting infrastructure. Based purely on what has already been done, we would expect extreme (greater than 2 C) warming, which would threaten to initiate a process toward a near-inevitable "hothouse" state as 1.5-2 C above pre-industrial is likely an "unstable" temperature state for the planet. And the instability...which, as the UN believed in 1990, may have started as low as 1 degree C, may be capable of non-linear processes which are hard to quantify. 

And as a side note...the IPCC completely avoids the science of abrupt climate change because of major tipping points which can amplify warming or climate circulations in other destructive ways. However, the concept that changes can happen on very rapid timescales (years to a few decades), is well known from paleorecords. (See discussion by Dr. James Lovelock and Dr. James White). Powerful tipping points include Arctic sea ice, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, mid-latitude jet stream, among others.

These reasons are why I tend to believe that humanity will be unable to stop climate change. Humanity will certainly try, but the cards are stacked heavily in favor of thermodynamics non-linear processes and chaotic behaviors, sadly. Beating thermodynamics usually means using time to your advantage and having graphs such as the one below, where even then, you have to suck a trace gas out of the atmosphere to win at the end, is usually not a good bet. I certainly wish ourselves much luck.




--Meteorologist Nick Humphrey