rss feedFabians should wake up to climate change.
I have just received my copy of the latest Fabian Review titled “Green Space”. It has depressed me very greatly. It is not the omen for the New Year that I had hoped for. All the pieces in it are well written and discuss important issues particularly the attitudes of public on green issues. For example
But new polling conducted by YouGov for the Fabian Society and WWP shows a large majority of the public still support the transition to a low-carbon economy as both an economic opportunity and an environmental necessity.
Keith Allott, Head of climate change WWF-UK
and
This latest polling confirms that the idea of a green economy that can help the planet while also creating jobs and boosting economic growth is no longer a fringe issue to be dismissed as fanciful, or a product of the wishful-thinking left.
Cathy Jamieson, MP for Kilmarnock
Most of the main articles in the review are concerned with this issue and associated ideas – the public are ready to support “green growth” which will create jobs and save the environment. (But do remember Job creation doesn’t need economic growth.)
I think the tone is summed up by the title of an article by the political adviser to Greenpeace: “The foundation of one nation Labour is the place we live, the land upon which we depend, and the climate that surrounds us all, argues Ruth Davis”. Rousing stuff.
Its good that political people are trying to argue for action on climate change to be integrated in mainstream politics but my worry is that it will be too little too late. My problem with the Fabian Green Space is that in the 15000+ words and eight “green” articles there is little awareness of the seriousness of climate change or any recognition that the official line on climate change is disastrously behind real world climate change.
In “Green Social Democracy”, Michael Jacobs starts well
We are living through not one but two crises of capitalism. The first one — the economic crisis which has followed the financial crash of 2008 eveyone knows about. The second is less familiar. This is the crisis of the global environment.
Michael Jacobs also has the most dire warnings in “Green Space”:
As the World Bank warned recently, present emissions trends will lead to global warming of at least four degrees centigrade by the middle of the century, triggering “a cascade of cataclysmic changes”, including more frequent weather-related disasters, declining global food stocks and sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people. As the Stem Report showed, even leaving aside the human cost, economic losses caused by such events would be equivalent in this century to the cost of the two world wars Great Depression of the last. In its continued investment in fossil fuels, capitalism is undermining itself.
The question is: Are these warnings dire enough?
If we look at the World Bank report, Turn down the heat: Why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided we find:
This report is not a comprehensive scientific assessment, as will be forthcoming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013–14 in its Fifth Assessment Report.
The problem is that the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is very seriously lagging behind the real world of climate change. The models the IPCC is using have serious missing feedbacks and this autumn’s lowest sea-ice extent will not even be considered in their report due in two or three years time – it happened after the cut-off date for evidence to be submitted (31 July 2012). At the date of publication in a couple of years, we may even see the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report predicting the first summer in the Arctic free of sea ice in twenty or thirty years ahead after the event has actually occurred.
The Stern Report was in some ways ahead of the IPCC – it made estimates of the effects of methane releases in Arctic regions. These are calculations not attempted by the IPCC at the time. These methane releases are one of several positive feedbacks making climate change more dangerous that are still not fully incorporated in the current batch of climate models (the CMIP5 models). Kevin Anderson has criticised the Stern Report for its unrealistically low estimates on the growth of emissions of carbon dioxide but I have been told by someone that worked on the Stern Report that this was deliberate. More realistic assumptions would have meant the report would have been dismissed by policy makers at that time. I’d say that was a good call.
In short, I believe Michael Jacobs gets closest to coping with the pace of climate change in this Fabian Review. I think the other contributors are oblivious of the fact that official science is flawed.
But even Michael is well behind the real world. I plead with him to learn more about climate change then tell his powerful friends.
Appendix
Some learning material
1. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations
2 Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections
also Snow on Tamino’s blog.
3. Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
- Using combined records of IceBridge and satellite-derived thickness and extent data to constrain future projections of Arctic sea ice. Julienne C. Stroeve
- The impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on global carbon policy. Kevin M. Schaefer
- Impacts of snow cover changes on permafrost warming and degradation in the Arctic. Tingjun Zhang
- Multiscale hydrologic impacts of dust deposition and climate warming in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Jeffrey S. Deems
6. An email from John Mitchell Mar 29 2012m (See below)
7. Climate talks must consider impact of melting permafrost, scientists say
8. Arctic methane: Why the sea ice matters
And some details …
Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations
Stroeve, J. C., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, and W. N. Meier (2012), Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16502, doi:10.1029/2012GL052676.
We show here that as a group, simulated trends from the models contributing to CMIP5 are more consistent with observations over the satellite era (1979–2011). Trends from most ensemble members and models nevertheless remain smaller than the observed value.
Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections
Derksen, C. and R. Brown (2012), Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2012GL053387, in press.
The rate of loss of June snow cover extent since 1979 (-21.5% decade-1) is greater than the loss of September sea ice extent (-10.8% decade-1) over the same period. Analysis of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model output shows the marked reductions in June SCE observed since 2005 fall below the zone of model consensus defined by +/-1 standard deviation from the multi-model ensemble mean.
See also Snow in Tamino’s blog
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
Stefan Rahmstorf et al 2012 Environ.Res.Lett.7 044035
The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.
Warming permafrost could emit 43 to 135 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2100 and 246 to 415 gigatons by 2200. Emissions could start within the next few decades and continue for several centuries, the report said. “Permafrost emissions could ultimately account for up to 39 percent of total emissions,” Schaefer said. “This must be factored in to treaty negotiations expected to replace the Kyoto Protocol.”
Reporters are invited to attend our scientists’ scheduled talks and poster presentations. Among the questions our scientists will be focusing on are:
- How do glaciers and snow cover contribute to water sources in High Asia?
- Do climate models accurately project future Arctic sea ice trends?
- How should permafrost carbon feedback affect global climate policy?
- Are there other causes of permafrost thaw in the Arctic?
- How is the mass balance of the North Antarctic Peninsula responding to ongoing ice shelf loss?
- How did the extremely dusty years of 2009 and 2010 affect snow cover and hydrology in the Upper Colorado River Basin?
AGU. Monday, December 3
Using combined records of IceBridge and satellite-derived thickness and extent data to constrain future projections of Arctic sea ice. Julienne C. Stroeve, NSIDC Research Scientist
Oral Presentation C11B-07
9:30 am, Moscone West 3005
How reliable are models in projecting future climate? Scientists know these models are reliable when they can reproduce the observed features of recent climate events. NSIDC research scientist Julienne Stroeve uses records of satellite- and air-borne sea ice thickness data to evaluate models of the 5th Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). Does the CMIP5 model reliably capture ice thickness and how it relates to observed summer trends in sea ice extent?
The impact of the permafrost carbon feedback on global carbon policy. Kevin M. Schaefer, NSIDC Research Scientist
Poster Presentation PA13A-1990
1:40 pm to 6 pm, Moscone South, Hall A-C
More than 180 countries are negotiating a new climate treaty that forces nations to cut emissions to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 placing an overall limit on total global carbon emissions. However, the climate projections set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report currently do not account for emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from thawing permafrost, risking anthropogenic emissions targets that overshoot this 2-degree warming target.
NSIDC research scientist Kevin Schaefer presents his team’s recommendations to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), delivered on November 27 at the UNFCC Conference of Parties in Doha. The report, commissioned by the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), recommends a special IPCC assessment on permafrost emissions to support negotiations of emissions targets for the climate change treaty, and directly impacts countries with large amounts of permafrost, including Russia, Canada, China, and the United States.
AGU. Tuesday, December 4
Impacts of snow cover changes on permafrost warming and degradation in the Arctic. Tingjun Zhang, NSIDC Senior Research Scientist
Invited Oral Presentation C21D-03
8:30 am, Moscone West 3007
Changes in air temperature alone cannot account for the observed permafrost warming and thawing in the Arctic. NSIDC senior research scientist Tingjun Zhang investigates other factors that could have caused permafrost warming and degradation in the past few decades.
Zhang’s modeling results reveal that changes in the timing of snow accumulation in early winter and the thickness of snow cover are key variables that influence permafrost temperatures. His results also show that these changes have had dramatic impacts on permafrost degradation and the formation of talik, or unfrozen ground in a permafrost area. How has the timing of snow accumulation in the Arctic changed?
AGU. Thursday, December 6
Multiscale hydrologic impacts of dust deposition and climate warming in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Jeffrey S. Deems, NSIDC Research Scientist
Invited Oral Presentation C41D-07
9:30 am, Moscone West 3002
Recent studies show that decreased snow albedo from anthropogenic disturbance-induced dust loading to the mountains of the upper Colorado River Basin shortens the duration of snow cover by up to 50 days and advances peak runoff at Lees Ferry, Arizona by an average of three weeks. NSIDC research scientist Jeffrey Deems examines the hydrologic impact of extreme dust years such as 2009 and 2010, as well as interactions with projected regional warming on the Upper Colorado River Basin and selected sub-basins.
An email from John Mitchell Mar 29 2012
Hi Geoff
I apologise for not answering earlier – I now work part time.
Based on help from my colleagues
1. reduced sea ice cover reflecting less of the sun’s heat back out to space,
2. changing ocean circulation patterns
1,2 are in most models and have been for years
3. less carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans
4. increased soil respiration
3,4 are in most carbon cycle models and fairly well established. There are a good number of such models in the current IPCC assessment
5. more forest fires
5 we don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.
6. melting permafrost
6a/b [GB – a:CO2, b:CH4] we don’t have in the GCM, but have some simple modelling of. Too early to show any results yet, but we plan to publish later this year. Bottom line is that both CH4 and CO2 will be released as permafrost thaws. The magnitude is uncertain, but likely to be significant.
7. increased decomposition of wetlands
7, we have in HadGEM2 but didn’t enable as a fully coupled feedback, but we can diagnose changes in wetland extent and CH4 emissions
I would add that although these things may be important, they are not always easy to quantify, model, initialize and validate, especially 5-7. That is why is taking time ot implement them.
John
Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Principal Research Fellow,
Climate talks must consider impact of melting permafrost, scientists say
Anchorage Daily News, November 27, 2012
Researchers have known the permafrost is warming for some time, but they’ve only recently begun to accurately measure just how much carbon is in the Earth’s frozen regions. And they’re only beginning to understand the consequences of such unanticipated greenhouse gas emissions, which weren’t factored into the manmade emissions targets world leaders are considering this week at the United Nations climate talks in Doha, Qatar.
Arctic methane: Why the sea ice matters
Neven’s Sea Ice Blog
I’m not sure how imminent a methane clathrate collapse is, but I’m not ruling anything out. As long as methane concentrations. global as well as Arctic, are not shooting up dramatically we’re in the ‘safe’ zone (were it not for CO2, of course).
Don’t forget, if you want to have regular updates on the situation with regards to methane, you can go to Apocalypse4You’s website and the ESRL Data Visualization page for Barrow (or any other sites you want).
[GB: It’s what Shakova says on the video that strikes me.]
