The gas almost works (more methane)

Atmospheric methane levels continued to increase in 2009, the World Meteorological Organisation’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin (summary PDF) confirmed this week. Methane averaged 1803 ppb over the year, up 5 ppb on 2008, and now contributes 18.1% of the radiative forcing caused by current greenhouse gas levels. The Bulletin suggests that “likely causes were above average wetland methane emissions due to exceptionally warm temperatures at high northern latitudes in 2007 and heavy precipitation in tropical wetlands in 2007 and 2008. However, it cautions that the reasons for the recent increases are not yet fully understood.”

A hint that the rise might be continuing this year is contained in this rather striking graph of methane levels recorded recently at the Mt Zeppelin recording station (a misty mountain?) in Ny Ã…lesund, Svalbard…

Continue reading “The gas almost works (more methane)”

(2) Degrees of existence

According to a UN Environment Programme report released yesterday, The Emissions Gap Report – Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2° C or 1.5° C? (summary PDF), if the planet is to have a reasonable (defined as 66%) chance of limiting warming to 2ºC, global emissions will have to peak before 2020, with emissions in 2020 of around 44 GtCO2e and reducing sharply thereafter. The report assesses the Copenhagen Accord pledges as likely to deliver best case 2020 emissions of about 49 GtCO2e. — leaving a “gap” of at least 5 GtCO2e between commitments and ambition. A “lenient” interpretation of the Accord could result in emissions little different to business as usual.

In order to close that gap, the report suggests that countries could adopt higher conditional targets, avoid the use of surplus emissions units (so-called “hot air”), and ensure strict rules for land use change and forestry carbon accounting. The good news is that the report suggests this might be possible. The bad news is that to have a reasonable chance of hitting a 1.5ºC target emissions will have to reduce by 4 – 5% per year after 2020, and move into negative (removing carbon from the atmosphere) territory after 2050. The report suggests this could be done by huge afforestation projects and using biomass energy generation with carbon capture and storage.

The UNEP report is part of the stage setting for the COP16 conference in Cancun beginning next week. More coverage at the BBC, Independent, and Guardian. Richard Black at the Beeb puts the worst case in the lead:

The promises countries have made to control carbon emissions will see temperatures rise by up to 4ºC during this century, a UN report concludes.

Ban Ki-moon was a bit more up-beat (that’s his job):

“I encourage all Parties to make good on their national mitigation pledges, and to further progress within the negotiations as well as through strengthened efforts on the ground to curb emissions. There is no time to waste. By closing the gap between the science and current ambition levels, we can seize the opportunity to usher in a new era of low-carbon prosperity and sustainable development for all.”

Sounds good. Sounds implausible. The gap between commitment and ambition is big and getting bigger by the day. Even a global recession could only trim last year’s emissions by 1.3% compared with the year before, as emissions growth in China and India more than made up for falls in the US, EU and Japan. The UNEP report suggests that there’s still a way to avoid the most damaging warming, but a look at ambitions for Cancun indicates the political will is lacking.

[Update: Barry Brook has a guest post from Tom Wigley looking at the likely climate system response to achieving zero emissions by 2050.]

[Dimmer]

Warming at the walls of the “citadel of ice”

Australian-born writer Meredith  Hooper was looking for “a route into the complex business of the Earth’s changing climate” when she spent January to March 2002 at Palmer Station on the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. She watched and chronicled the work of scientist Bill Fraser and his team who for years have studied the Adélie penguins breeding on nearby islands over the summer months.

I read the account of her time there in her book The Ferocious Summer. It was the summer when the Larsen B ice shelf on the eastern side of the Peninsula spectacularly disintegrated. Her often poignant story tells of diminished numbers of penguins arriving for breeding, weather conditions inappropriate for their nesting, poor nutrition levels and low fledgling survival rates.

The book was also an illuminating account of the working and thinking of the scientists as they gradually amass and interpret the years of data needed for a proper understanding of what is happening to wildlife populations under the inexorable processes of climate change.

Hooper wrote for any who want to understand what global warming might mean for specific places and the life which has developed in close relationship with them. She observes that “climate change isn’t a blanket thrown evenly over the surface of the Earth”. Its impacts are variable and often need to be understood locally.

In the vulnerability of the Adélie penguins she saw a small example of a potentially vast reality ahead. “In one sense, they had become surrogate humans.” Her book was yet another solemn warning from the world of science.

Now another book has appeared by a writer who also spent several months with Bill Fraser’s team. Fraser’s Penguins is written by Fen Montaigne, senior editor of the online Yale 360. I hope to be reading and reviewing it in the near future. But in the meantime I wanted to draw attention to a report he has just written for Yale 360, The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt. Its focus is much wider than the Adélie penguins, though they figure in it: amongst other things he notes that their population has declined from 30,000 breeding pairs in 1975 to 5,600 pairs today.

On the broader Antarctic picture Montaigne explains helpfully for the general reader the developing scientific understanding of the effects of warming on the ice. He begins with a prescient quote from a geologist, John H. Mercer, writing in Nature in 1978.

“If present trends in fossil fuel consumption continue, a critical level of warmth will have been passed in high southern latitudes 50 years from now, and deglaciation of West Antarctica will be imminent or in progress… One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward.”

Montaigne observes that Mercer’s prediction has come true, a couple of decades earlier than he anticipated. Since Mercer wrote those words eight ice shelves have fully or partially collapsed along the Antarctic Peninsula, and the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than virtually any place on Earth.

Montaigne continues:

“The question now, as humanity pours greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate, is not whether Antarctica will begin to warm in earnest, but how rapidly. The melting of Antarctica’s northernmost region – the Antarctic Peninsula – is already well underway, representing the first breach in an enormous citadel of cold that holds 90 percent of the world’s ice.

He acknowledges the vastness and coldness of the Antarctic ice dome, the heart of which is not likely to begin to melt any time soon.  But the periphery is another matter, and on that periphery the Antarctic peninsula has warmed faster than any other place. A 60-year temperature record at a research base on the northwest shows winter temperatures 11 degrees F higher and annual average temperatures 5 degrees F higher.

Ninety percent of 244 glaciers along the western Antarctic Peninsula have retreated since 1940. Sea ice covers the Southern Ocean off the western Antarctic Peninsula three fewer months a year than in 1979, according to satellite data. In addition, ice shelves have been disintegrating up and down the peninsula.

He quotes Ted Scambos, the lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

“We are already at the point where the changes we’re seeing in this part of Antarctica are unprecedented throughout the entire period of human civilization.”

Turning to the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers further south, Montaigne discusses the effect of warming water. Changing atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns have caused the water of the deep Antarctic Circumpolar Current to be funnelled up onto the continental shelf in western Antarctica. At 37 degrees F in winter, it is warmer than the surface water and much warmer than air temperatures. It’s a huge volume and is having an enormous impact. In relative terms it is described as “blisteringly hot” by Douglas Martinson, an oceanographer and Antarctic specialist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

The thinking of Robert Bindschadler, a senior fellow at the Goddard Space Flight Center and an expert on Antarctic ice, is that the warmer waters are melting the submerged undersides of the ice shelves attached to the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, causing them to grow thinner. The melting is effectively loosening the grip of the Pine Island Glacier on the sea floor, causing the vast river of ice behind it to accelerate into the sea. It is now moving at a rate of about two miles a year.

Montaigne reports Bindschadler as saying that if all the ice from the ice streams feeding the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers were to flow into the Southern Ocean, global sea levels could increase by five feet, inundating low-lying coastal areas from Florida to Bangladesh. “Such an event, said Bindschadler, “could happen in the next half-century.”

The warming of the Antarctic is already bad news for ice-dependent penguin species.  It will also be bad news for humanity if we mindlessly continue our assault on the citadel of ice.

Handle with care

Who is to temper the message of climate science to fit the psychology of those who receive it?

According to a report in Science Daily a forthcoming study will show that people may discount the evidence for global warming if it threatens their fundamental tendency to see the world as safe, stable and fair. On the other hand they may get past their scepticism if the findings of climate science are not presented apocalyptically and solutions to the problem are offered. Robb Willer, UC Berkeley social psychologist and doctoral student Matthew Feinberg have co-authored the study which will appear in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science.

 

I won’t report the details of their experiments, which are outlined in the Science Daily report for any who would like further information. The claim that people don’t respond to doomsday themes is common enough, though the study’s investigation of how this is related to their view of the world as just and fair may well be illuminating. What I found myself thinking as I was reading the report of the study was not so much whether it is revealing as what it is supposed to imply for those who practise climate science.

I can’t really see that it carries any implication at all for the scientists. Their work is to report what they detect is happening and will happen in the future if we continue to overload the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. There’s no way in which what they discover can be communicated as anything other than serious in its consequences.  I wrote some months ago about the unedifying spectacle of Bjorn Lomborg attempting to downplay the seriousness by talking about “balanced information” and moving away from end-of-the-world stories. He was on a climate change panel at a PEN conference and his address immediately followed James Hansen’s. Hansen had said that if we burn all of the fossil fuels we are guaranteed to pass tipping points, the most imminent major one being disintegration of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Lomborg didn’t address the science at all, but simply said that “apocalyptic information” turns people off and is part of the reason why we’ve seen a decline in public concern about global warming. The sombre warnings of the scientist were simply swept away by the economist. Easy. But not an option for the scientist who can hardly moderate the message because it might turn people off. In fact the possible public response cannot be allowed any influence on the studies climate scientists are conducting.

However there are solutions which come hand in hand with the serious findings of the science, and there’s nothing to say we can’t embrace the solutions without dwelling on the consequences of what will happen if we don’t. I notice that Arnold Schwarzenegger in his planned new role of environmental activist is likely to avoid mention of the words climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, which he thinks are a turn-off for some people. “You’ve got to make it hip. You’ve got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.” I hope he meets with success. Nevertheless he is launching on his role because he is aware of how great a threat climate change poses to the human future. It’s there as background reference for him.

I wonder how the experiments described by the psychologists would turn out if they were administered to the population of a Pacific island threatened by sea level rise. Or to Peruvian or Bolivian farmers hit by glacier retreat. Their sense of stability and safety has already been eroded and is hardly likely to interfere with their estimation of the evidence for climate change. They’re not turned off by information that the effects of climate change are potentially catastrophic. They can see that. It’s seemingly the wealthy and protected societies which require communication so delicate that it won’t arouse any sense of fear.

Any approach that will result in drastically lowered emissions and green energy is to be welcomed. But the science is implacable. There’s no way of making it unthreatening.

[Traveling Wilburys]

The Climate Show #2: Oreskes and the Merchants of Doubt

[youtube]S2fntae4OYI[/youtube]

Cracking episode of The Climate Show this week, featuring a must-listen interview with Naomi Oreskes discussing the background to her book Merchants of Doubt. The people who attacked her 2004 paper on the scientific consensus about global warming didn’t know what they were letting themselves in for. Also in the show: excellent infographics, Arctic warming bringing colder winters to the northern hemisphere, European biofuels, John Cook of Skeptical Science discusses the new Twitter bot that auto argues with denier tweets, electric cars again, and steady state economics. Not wide-ranging at all, really… 😉

Watch The Climate Show on our Youtube channel, subscribe to the podcast via iTunes, or listen direct/download here:

The Climate Show

Follow The Climate Show on Facebook and Twitter, and soon at The Climate Show web site.

Show notes below the fold.

Continue reading “The Climate Show #2: Oreskes and the Merchants of Doubt”