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

Tuesday, April 4, 2023

IPCC keeps downplaying the danger even as reality strikes

Record hot sea surface


The daily sea surface temperature (SST) between 60°South and 60°North was at a record high on April 2, 2023, i.e. the highest temperature in the NOAA record that started in 1981, as illustrated by the above image. The black line shows this year's SST, up to April 2, 2023. The orange line shows last year's SST, i.e. 2022. The thicker grey line shows SST in the year 2020, when annual temperatures on land and ocean reached a record high, since 2020 was an El Niño year. 

This record high sea surface temperature comes as we're moving into a new El Niño, as illustrated by the image on the right, adapted from NOAA.

There are further reasons why this uptick doesn't come unexpected. The emerging El Niño looks set to coincide with high sunspots, while the 2022 Tonga submarine volcano eruption did add a huge amount of water vapor to the atmosphere, as discussed in an earlier post

Greenhouse gas concentrations keep rising

Reducing emissions is the right thing to do, even though it comes with loss of the aerosol masking effect that causes a rise in temperatures, as discussed in an earlier post. Moreover, greenhouse gas levels aren't falling.

Global monthly nitrous oxide rose to 336.33 ppb in December 2022, as illustrated by the image on the right. A recent study found that atmospheric abundances and emissions of five CFCs (CFC-13, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, CFC-114a and CFC-115) increased between 2010 and 2020.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) broke three records recently at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, as illustrated by the image on the right. 

The daily mean (green points) rose to 423.23 ppm (parts per million) on April 12, 2023, a record high in the NOAA record for in situ measurements. The weekly mean CO₂ (red lines) was 422.54 ppm in the week that started April 2, 2023, and the monthly mean CO₂ (blue lines) was 421.00 ppm in March 2023.

Furthermore, CO₂ was as high as about 424.5 ppm in a flask measurement at Mauna Loa, Hawaii recently, as illustrated by the image on the right.

Monthly methane recently rose to above 1950 ppb at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, as illustrated by the image on the right underneath.

Globally, methane rose to 1924.99 ppb in December 2022, the highest in the NOAA globally averaged marine surface monthly mean methane record that goes back to July 1983.

The image below has a polynomial trend added based on April 2018 to December 2022 NOAA global methane data and pointing at 1200 ppm CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) getting crossed in 2027.

The Clouds Tipping Point, at 1200 ppm CO₂e, could be crossed and this on its own could result in a further rise of 8°C. This tipping point could be crossed as early as in 2027 due to forcing caused by the rise in methane alone. When further forcing is taken into account, this could happen even earlier than in 2027.


NOAA's 1924.99 ppb for the December 2022 global methane mean translates into 385 ppm CO₂e when using a 1-year GWP of 200 for methane.

So, adding this 385 ppm CO₂e to 424.5 ppm CO₂ would leave just 390.5 ppm CO₂e for further forcing, before the Clouds Tipping Point would get crossed, as the image on the right illustrates.

Methane at higher altitude can reach even higher levels than NOAA's global marine surface data. As the image further above shows, monthly methane recently rose to above 1950 ppb at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

Further changes such as caused by sea ice loss and changes in aerosols can also speed up the temperature rise.

[ see the Extinction page ]
Vast amounts of ocean heat are headed to invade the Arctic. Last year, North Atlantic sea surface temperatures reached a record high of 24.9°C in early September. The continuing rise of ocean heat threatens to trigger massive loss of sea ice and eruptions of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, as has been described many times before, such as in this post and in this post. 

All this is pushing up temperatures and will likely keep pushing up temperatures even further over the next few years. To say that the situation is dangerous is a vast understatement.

Politicians keep downplaying the danger

Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is reading the Synthesis Report of its 6th Assessment Report line by line, asking for approval from politicians who seek to downplay such dangers. "There are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now" says the IPCC in an earlier news release with the title Urgent climate action can secure a liveable future for all.

The IPCC was created in 1988 by politicians and set up under the UNEP and WMO to provide politicians with the best-available scientific analysis on climate change. Yet, emissions have kept rising ever since, even accelerating, and the situation has continued to become ever more dire. 

Let's face it, the IPCC is an instrument used by politicians to keep downplaying the danger, even as reality strikes it in the face as to how dire the situation is. Politicians control the IPCC and politicians have proven to be prone to make deals in which they sell out climate action. Politicians have forfeited their chance to influence the process.

Climate action flowchart

In conclusion, politicians should be kept as much as possible out of the climate picture. We, the people, should support communities seeking effective climate action. Below is a flowchart showing how climate action can be achieved without politicians.

[ click on images to enlarge ]


Links

• Climate Reanalyzer - Daily sea surface temperatures
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily

• NOAA - Climate Prediction Center - ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

• Sea surface temperature at record high

• Global increase of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons from 2010 to 2020 - by Luke Western et al. 

• NOAA - greenhouse gases at Mauna Loa, Hawaii 

• NOAA - Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

• NOAA - global methane 

Saturday, November 12, 2022

There is no Carbon Budget

[ Sam Carana: "There is no carbon budget!" ]

In the above image, the atmosphere is presented as a "bucket" filling with greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel use from 1870 to 2020. The image depicts the idea that there is some carbon budget left, before 1.5°C above pre-industrial will be reached. The Global Carbon Project has just issued an update of what it refers to as the Global Carbon Budget

[ adapted from Global Carbon Budget 2022 ]
The Global Carbon Project insists that there still is some carbon budget left, even as global fossil fuel C₂O emissions in 2021 were higher than 2020, and are projected to be higher again in 2022 than 2021, as illustrated by the image on the right.

Arctic-news has long said that the suggestion of a carbon budget is part of a narrative that polluters seek to spread, i.e. that there was some budget left to be divided among polluters, as if polluters could safely continue to pollute for years to come before thresholds would be reached that could make life uncomfortable, such as a rise of 1.5°C above pre-industrial. 

For starters, an earlier analysis warns that the 1.5°C threshold may have been crossed long ago. The situation looks set to soon become even more catastrophic. The upcoming El Niño could make a difference of more than 0.5°C over the next few years. Additionally, there will be a growing impact of sunspots, forecast to peak in July 2025. 

Arctic-news has long warned about rising temperatures, not only due to high greenhouse gas levels, but also due to a number of events and developments including a rise of up to 1.6°C due to loss of Arctic sea ice and permafrost, and associated changes, a rise of up to 1.9°C due to a decrease in cooling aerosols, and a rise of up to 0.6°C due to an increase in warming aerosols and gases as a result of more biomass and waste burning and forest fires.

More recent posts also warn that the rise could cause the clouds tipping point at 1200 ppm CO₂e to be crossed. Accordingly, the total temperature rise could be as high as 18.44°C from pre-industrial by 2026. Keep in mind that humans are likely to go extinct with a rise of 3°C, as discussed in an earlier post.

[ image from quotes, text from 2013 post ]
So, there is no carbon budget left. There is just a huge amount of carbon to be removed from the atmosphere and oceans, a "debt" that polluters would rather be forgotten or passed on to future generations.

This "debt" has been growing since well before the industrial revolution started. Long ago, people should have started to reduce emissions and remove greenhouse gases, as well as take further action to improve the situation, and Arctic-news has long said that comprehensive and effective action must be taken without delay.

The IPCC has betrayed the very scientific basis it was supposed to reflect

The IPCC keeps insisting that there was a carbon budget, and this goes hand in hand with peddling the notion that the temperature rise was still less than 1.5°C. As discussed in an earlier analysis, the temperature has been rising for thousands of years and may have crossed the 1.5°C mark long ago.

Furthermore, the Paris Agreement instructs the IPCC to specify pathways to limit the rise to 1.5°C. In its arrogance, the IPCC on the one hand keeps insisting that 1.5°C has not been crossed, while on the other hand bluntly refusing to specify credible pathways to keep it that way. The untenability of this attitude is illustrated by a recent UN news release Climate change: No 'credible pathway' to 1.5C limit, UNEP warns.

Many studies point at ways improvements could be facilitated, such as by support for solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, biochar, vegan-organic food, air taxis, etc. This analysis and this earlier post agree and also conclude that local feebates work best and that it is preferable for decision-making regarding their implementation to be delegated to local communities. The IPCC on the one hand refuses to contemplate policy instruments, yet on the other hand it keeps peddling pet projects pushed by polluters, such as cap-and-trade, nuclear power, CCS, bioenergy and BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), as illustrated by the image below. 

[ IPCC keeps peddling pet projects pushed by polluters ]

The IPCC keeps downplaying the potential for a huge temperature rise

The IPCC keeps downplaying developments that could lead to a huge temperature rise. Such developments include:

• Rising greenhouse levels due to more emissions by people and collapse of the biosphere, and due to more emissions from forest, peatlands and waste fires;

• Collapse of the cryosphere, including decline of permafrost, glaciers and sea ice loss and latent heat buffer loss resulting in more clouds over the Arctic, more ocean heat moving into the Arctic Ocean and associated seafloor methane releases;

• Loss of cloud reflectivity and the potential for CO₂e levels to cross the clouds tipping point;

• Loss of the aerosol masking effect;

• More water vapor in the atmosphere in line with rising temperatures and as a result from loss of sea ice.

Altogether, these developments have the potential to raise the temperature by 18.44°C from pre-industrial, as discussed at the extinction page

One of the most harmful ways in which the IPCC has been downplaying the potential for temperatures to rise is by using a too low Global Warming Potential (GWP) for methane. 

This is illustrated by the image on the right, from an earlier post. In the IPCC special report Climate Change and Land a GWP for methane is used of 28 over 100 years to assess the impact of AFOLU (agriculture, forestry, and other land use) versus the impact of fossil fuel, etc. The image illustrates the difference in impact when a GWP for methane of 171 over a few years is used instead.

The IPCC seeks to justify its use of a GWP of 28 by focusing on a pulse of methane over 100 years. The impact of such a pulse declines over the years, since the lifetime of methane is only 11.8 years. However, using a pulse to calculate the impact of the total methane in the atmosphere isn't appropriate, because methane doesn't just disappear, but is constantly replenished, or rather is more than replenished, as illustrated by the image further below. Because of this and because of the potentially huge temperature rise within a few years, it makes more sense to calculate the impact of methane over a short period. Over one year, methane's GWP is 200, as discussed at this page. A GWP of 200 is used in the image below (right axis). 

[ from earlier post ]
Very threatening is a rise in methane that kept following the trend depicted in the above image, created with WMO 2015-2021 global annual surface mean methane abundances, with an added trend that points at a potential mean global abundance of methane of more than 700 ppm (parts per million) CO₂e by the end of 2026. The image warns that, if such a trend kept continuing, the clouds tipping point could be crossed as a result of the forcing of methane alone.
The above NOAA image shows a methane monthly average for November 2022 of more than 1950 parts per billion (ppb) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.  

Conclusions

The situation is dire and the right thing to do now is to help avoid or delay the worst from happening, through action as described in the Climate Plan and at the recent post Transforming Society.

Links

• Global Carbon Project - Global Carbon Budget 2022 
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm

• The upcoming El Nino and further events and developments (2022) 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-upcoming-el-nino-and-further-events-and-developments.html

• Arctic Methane Monster (2013)
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/09/arctic-methane-monster.html

• The Clouds Feedback and the Clouds Tipping Point
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html

• Methane levels threaten to skyrocket (2014) 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/09/methane-levels-threaten-to-skyrocket.html

• Pre-industrial
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/pre-industrial.html

• Sunspots
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/sunspots.html

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

• NOAA - Global Monitoring Laboratory
https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/iadv

• Methane Keeps rising
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/methane-keeps-rising.html

• When will we die? 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/when-will-we-die.html

• IPCC - Special Report on Climate Change and Land
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl

• Climate change: No ‘credible pathway’ to 1.5C limit, UNEP warns 
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912

• Human Extinction by 2025? 
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/07/human-extinction-by-2025.html

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

• Transforming Society (2022)
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html






Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Shortcomings of IPCC AR6 WGIII - Mitigation of Climate Change

In the video below, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres comments on the launch of the IPCC AR6 WGIII SPM Mitigation report. 

[ U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres ]

The report has severe shortcomings, including: 

The IPCC makes it look as if the temperature rise could be restricted to 1.5°C above pre-industrial and insists there was a carbon budget left, to be divided by using monetary analysis. 

This narrative results in a failure to highlight in the SPM some key drivers of change (such as heat pumps in buildings and air taxis in transport) and in inappropriately referring to such key drivers of change as 'options', while failing to mention the best policies to achieve the necessary changes, i.e. through local feebates.


The agenda behind this narrative becomes further evident in phrases such as “CCS could allow fossil fuels to be used longer, reducing stranded assets” and “oil and gas assets are projected to be more at risk of being stranded toward mid-century”. 


Instead of “assets” at “risk” of getting “stranded”, these are liabilities that burden the world with a rising cost of clean-up and compensation claims. The IPCC gives CCS further undeserved importance by mentioning it no less than 32 times in the SPM, while a key driver of change such as heat pumps is mentioned only once, and not under buildings but industrial policy. 

The image below, from the report's SPM, shows “options” by sector with the length of each bar indicating their potential for emissions reduction by 2030, while the color inside the bar gives a cost estimate. 

[ from IPCC AR6 WGIII SPM, click images to enlarge ]

These are not genuinely options, since the dire situation leaves little choice and instead makes it imperative to act most urgently, comprehensively and effectively on climate change, in line with the Paris Agreement. 


The Paris Agreement does instruct the IPCC to describe the best pathways to achieve this and the IPCC has until now refused to do so. As Arctic-news blog has pointed out for more than a decade, mitigation is most effectively achieved by offering people a range of options, preferably through local feebates, which will also make such policies more popular, as a 2019 analysis (above) concludes.

[ from earlier post ]

Options are more appropriately realized in the form of feebates that can offer a range of options, with the more polluting options attracting fees and with the revenues used to fund rebates on the cleaner options. 

An example of a wider set of local feebates is depicted in the above analysis of EV policy. A more diverse set of feebates could include not only fees on fuel and fuel-powered vehicles, but also on facilities that sell or process fuel, vehicle registration, parking, toll roads, etc. It's important to act comprehensively, along several lines of action, e.g. to redesign cities and plan for air taxis

Given the urgency to act, such lines of action are all best implemented as soon as possible, yet at the same time many lines of action are best kept separate, as illustrated by the above image. 

The image on the right illustrates the difference between using a Gobal Warming Potential (GWP) for methane of 171 over a few years, vs the IPCC's use of a GWP of 28 over 100 years. 


Fees on sales of livestock products can raise revenue for pyrolysis of biowaste, with the resulting biochar added to the soil.  That would also support the transition toward a vegan-organic diet more strongly, in line with the conclusion of an earlier IPCC report that a vegan diet ranks highest regarding mitigation (image right, from an earlier post). 

The Climate Plan prefers local feebates. Where needed, fees can be set high enough to effectively ban specific alternatives.

Furthermore, instead of using money, local councils could add extra fees to rates for land where soil carbon falls, while using all revenue for rebates on rates for land where soil carbon rises.

That way, biochar effectively becomes a tool to lower rates, while it will also help improve the soil's fertility, its ability to retain water and to support more vegetation. That way, real assets are built, as illustrated by the image on the right, from the 2014 post Biochar Builds Real Assets.

Catastrophic Methane Rise 

The IPCC narrative hinges on radical cuts in methane emissions from 2020, as illustrated by the image on the right. 

Instead, methane rose by 15.27 ppb in 2020 and by 16.99 ppb in 2021, the two highest growth levels since the NOAA record began in 1984. 

The combination image below shows the catastrophic rise of methane. The image in the left panel shows a trend based on January 2008-December 2021 monthly mean methane data. 

When extending this trend, current methane concentration would be 1920 ppb. Note that methane in December 2021 was 18.6 ppb higher than in December 2020, and it now is April 2022.


The situation is even worse than depicted in above image, as NOAA's data are for marine surface measurements. Methane tends to rise in the atmosphere and accumulate at higher altitudes. As illustrated by the image below, mean methane level is growing fastest at the higher altitude associated with 293 mb. 


Anyway, have another look at the combination image further above. The right panel shows that, if the trend continues, a concentration of 3840 ppb (i.e. double the current concentration) could be crossed in 2029, which would translate into a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) of 768 parts per million (ppm) at a one-year global warming potential (GWP) for methane of 200

The image on the right shows a trend that, if continued, will cross a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm by 2029. 

Add this 450 ppm for CO₂ to 768 ppm CO₂e for methane and the joint CO₂e could be 1218 ppm in 2029, i.e. it would have crossed the point at which the clouds feedback starts to kick in (at 1200 ppm CO₂e). 

The clouds feedback could thus raise the global temperature by 8°C by 2029, but when also adding the temperature impact of greenhouse gases and further drivers, the clouds tipping point could be crossed much earlier, say by 2026, while a temperature rise of 10°C could happen even before the clouds tipping point gets reached. Drivers could include nitrous oxide (N₂O, see image right), seafloor methane, water vapor, loss of Arctic sea ice and the falling away of the aerosol masking effect, as discussed at the Extinction page.

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

Links


• Secretary-General Warns of Climate Emergency, Calling Intergovernmental Panel’s Report ‘a File of Shame’, While Saying Leaders ‘Are Lying’, Fuelling Flames
https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sgsm21228.doc.htm

• Mitigation of Climate Change Report 2022: "Litany of broken climate promises" - UN Chief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8rlLaT8v4Q

• IPCC Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change - Summary for Policymakers
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

• IPCC special report Climate Change and Land
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl

• IPCC Report Climate Change and Land (review)
• Which policy can help EVs most?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/10/which-policy-can-help-evs-most.html

• Confirm Methane's Importance
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/03/confirm-methanes-importance.html

• Biochar Builds Real Assets

• The Importance of Methane

• NOAA - Globally averaged marine surface monthly mean methane data
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/ch4/ch4_mm_gl.txt

• NOAA - Globally averaged marine surface annual mean methane data

• NOAA - MetOp satellite methane data - Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI)

• NOAA - Mauna Loa CO2 weekly mean and historical comparisons

• Clouds feedback

• Extinction

Monday, February 28, 2022

What the IPCC impacts report is hiding

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Above image is adapted from content by IPCC AR6 WGII and Peter Carter, expert IPCC reviewer and director of the Climate Emergency Institute

The IPCC keeps hiding how much the temperature could already have risen and could rise over the next few years, the associated dangers, and the policies that could most effectively improve the situation. 



1. Hiding the potential rise that has already unfolded
One of the first issues that springs to mind is the IPCC's use of 1850-1900 as a baseline, which isn't pre-industrial as the Paris Agreement called for.


Above image, adapted from a NASA image, shows a January 2022 temperature rise of 1.31°C versus 1885-1915. As the box underneath indicates, a further 0.1°C could be added for ocean air temperatures and another 0.1°C for higher polar anomalies. When calculating the temperature rise from pre-industrial, a further 0.79°C could be added for the period from 3480 BC to 1900, resulting in a total temperature rise from pre-industrial to January 2022 of 2.3°C.


2. Hiding the potential rise to come

While a huge temperature rise has already unfolded, the rise is accelerating, as discussed at earlier posts such as this one and as illustrated by the image below, an example from an earlier post


In other words, an even larger temperature rise threatens to unfold soon, i.e. this could happen over the course of at few years, as illustrated by the stacked bar next to the cartoon above and as discussed at the extinction page.


3. Hiding the largest dangers

The rise that has already unfolded, i.e. the rise from pre-industrial to 2020, could be as much as 2.3°C, as discussed above and at the pre-industrial page. Furthermore, the temperature rise is accelerating. In other words, Earth is already in the danger zone and the question remains what the implications are of a 3°C, 4°C and 5°C rise.



What would be the impact of a 3°C, a 4°C, or a 5°C rise? 

At a 3°C rise, humans will likely go extinct, as habitat for humans (and many other species) will disappear. Such a rise will cause a rapid decline of the snow and ice cover around the globe, in turn making that less sunlight gets reflected back into space. Associated changes are discussed in more detail at this page and this page, and include that the jet stream will further get out of shape, resulting in more extreme weather events such as droughts, heatwaves and firestorms. Changes to the jet stream will also contribute to a further strengthening of storms, which threatens to at times push large amounts of hot, salty water into the Arctic Ocean, triggering eruptions of more and more seafloor methane, as discussed in an earlier post.

[ from an earlier post  ]
From a 4°C rise, Earth will experience a moist-greenhouse scenario. As the temperature rise gains further momentum, runaway heating may well turn Earth into a lifeless planet, a danger that was discussed in this 2013 post, warning that, without anything stopping the rise, it will continue to eventually destroy the ozone layer and the ice caps, while the oceans would be evaporating into the atmosphere's upper stratosphere and eventually disappear into space.

At 5°C rise, most life on Earth will have gone extinct. A 2018 study by Strona & Bradshaw indicates that most life on Earth will disappear with a 5°C rise (see box on the right). As the temperature keeps rising, chances are that all life on Earth will go extinct, as Earth would be left with no ozone layer to protect life from deadly UV-radiation. Furthermore, Earth would no longer have water, an essential building block of life. Soil moisture, groundwater and water in oceans would evaporate and eventually disappear into space, as discussed in an earlier post.

Much of the above was discussed earlier at Most Important Message Ever.

[ from the post When will we die? ]

A rise of more than 5°C could happen within a decade, possibly by 2026. Humans will likely go extinct with a 3°C rise and most life on Earth will disappear with a 5°C rise. In the light of this, we should act with integrity.


4. Hiding the very policies that can most effectively improve the situation

The IPCC creates a perception that pollution can continue for decades to come. The IPCC does so by downplaying the size of the temperature rise and the threat of a huge rise within years. The IPCC promotes the idea that there was a “carbon budget” to be divided among polluters that would enable polluters to keep polluting for decades to come. Most importantly, the IPCC has once more failed to do what the Paris Agreement calls for, i.e. for the IPCC to specify the pathways that can best improve the situation, specifically the policies that are needed to facilitate a better future. 

The speed at which a huge temperature rise can unfold makes that many adaption efforts could be wasted or even counter-productive. A 2021 report by Neta Crawford estimates the budgetary costs and future obligations of the post-9/11 wars at about $8 trillion in 2021 dollars. Much of that money was spent on securing the supply and transport of fossil fuel. Governments spend $1.8tn a year on subsidies that harm the environment, a study by Doug Koplow et al. finds. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8% of GDP and are expected to rise to 7.4% of GDP in 2025, a 2021 IMF report finds. 

Perverse subsidies are even higher when also including money that now goes into constructing transport infrastructure such as roads, highways, tunnels, bridges, railways, airports, etc. Redirecting such funding could enable more people to work and study from home with time to spare and gardens to grow their own food, instead of commuting by car over roads to offices, schools, etc.

[ from earlier post ]
Electric VTOL air taxis can replace a huge part of the traffic that now demands expensive infrastructure such as roads, railways including service stations, parking buildings and strips, bridges, tunnels, etc. Air taxis can facilitate a dramatic reduction in the need for traffic infrastructure, which also includes space now used for garages and parking.

If much of this traffic instead takes place by air taxis, then urban design can have more space for outdoor dining, parks, markets, tree-lined footpaths, bike-tracks, etc. 

Furthermore, drones could be used for transport and delivery of cargo, pharmaceuticals, etc. In many places, cities can become more compact and buildings can be put closer together, thus reducing overall cost and enabling people to reach destinations quicker, either by walking or cycling. Air taxis can bring people to many destinations fast, while people can also using online facilities to further reduce the need for transport and travel infrastructure.

In other places, the space now used for roads and parking could instead be used to create urban forests, to extend gardens and to create community gardens and markets where people can get locally-produced vegan-organic food such as fruit and vegetables.

Much additional infrastructure can also change, such as traffic lights and road signs, streetlights and the electricity grid. Supply of natural gas could be replaced by electric devices such as heat-pumps, induction-cookers and electric water-heaters. Organic waste can be pyrolysed with the resulting biochar added to the soil.

For more on the Urban Heat Island effect, see:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/airtaxis/posts/419568755612304


For more on biochar and pyrolysis, see:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/biochar


Conclusion

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


Links

• IPCC AR6 WGII - Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

• Is the IPCC creating false perceptions, again?

• Human Extinction by 2022?

• NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)
• Pre-industrial
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/pre-industrial.html

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

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

• Clouds feedback
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/clouds-feedback.html

• When Will We Die?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/when-will-we-die.html

• Could Earth go the same way as Venus?
• Accelerating Methane Rise
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/02/accelerating-methane-rise.html

• Protecting Nature by Reforming Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: The Role of Business Prepared - by Doug Koplow and Ronald Steenblik (2022) 
https://www.earthtrack.net/sites/default/files/documents/EHS_Reform_Background_Report_fin.pdf

• The U.S. Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars - by Neta Crawford (2021)
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_U.S.%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Post-9%2011%20Wars_9.1.21.pdf

• IMF - Still Not Getting Energy Prices Right: A Global and Country Update of Fossil Fuel Subsidies
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004

• Which policy can help EVs most?
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html




Thursday, August 26, 2021

Is the IPCC creating false perceptions, again?

IPCC AR6 Report

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (WG1 AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) raises the question: Is the IPCC seeking to downplay the dire situation that we are in, again? 



Downplaying the temperature rise from pre-industrial

One of the first issues that comes up is the baseline. The IPCC uses 1850–1900 as a baseline, like it did before (in SR1.5). This is one out of many instances where the IPCC creates a perception that it would take many years before the 1.5°C threshold would be crossed. This 1850–1900 isn't pre-industrial. The Paris Agreement calls for pre-industrial as a base. 

The IPCC image on the right shows a 1.09°C rise from 1850–1900. This isn't the rise to the year 2020, but it is the rise to the period from 2011 to 2020. 

Instead, when taking the 2020 temperature rise and going back one century, NASA data show a 1.29°C rise from 1920, and this is a conservative figure, as 0.1°C can be added to translate NASA's sea surface temperatures into ocean air temperatures and another 0.1°C can be added for higher polar anomalies, which brings the temperature rise up to almost 1.5°C and this isn't the full rise from pre-industrial by a long shot.



Furthermore, the IPCC uses seasonally-biased data to "reconstruct" the temperature rise that took place prior to its baseline, making it look as if there was no rise before its baseline.

Instead, the rise from pre-industrial to 1920 could be as much as 0.3°C (1750 to 1920) + 0.2°C (1520 to 1750) + 0.29°C (3480 BC to 1520).

Adding up the rises for all these elements gives a total rise from pre-industrial to 2020 that could be as high as 1.29°C + 0.1°C + 0.1°C + 0.3°C + 0.2°C + 0.29°C = 2.28°C, as highlighted by above images and as further discussed at the pre-industrial page

In February 2016, the temperature
was 1.70°C higher than in 1900
(i.e. 1885-1914, the 30-year period
centered around the start of 1900)
Ignoring peak peril by averaging over long periods

The map on the right shows that the average global temperature was 1.70°C higher in February 2016 than around 1900 (i.e. 1885-1914). The map also shows local anomalies as high as 15.1°C and even higher peaks were reached on specific days. 

This raises questions as to how the thresholds set at the Paris Agreement should be measured, i.e. is a threshold deemed to be crossed when the anomaly from pre-industrial crosses the threshold for a month, or for a year, or for a decade? Wouldn't a long period effectively grant polluters a long grace period to keep polluting? 

When in doubt, wouldn't downplaying the danger violate the precautionary principle?  

When building a bridge, an engineer will calculate how much load it can handle by first looking at how many heavy trucks will be using the bridge at times of PEAK traffic, rather than to average the weight of all vehicles on the bridge over a 30-year period. Caption and image by Sam Carana from earlier post.

Downplaying the near-term temperature rise

The Paris Agreement calls for politicians to limit the temperature rise to well below 2°C from pre-industrial, while calling upon the IPCC to describe pathways to achieve this. 

Instead of pointing at the policies that can best be  adopted, the IPCC uses Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), and the only two scenarios for which the rise remains well below 2°C are SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 (images right).

The position of methane is of vital importance in these scenarios. As a requirement for both the SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 scenarios, methane emissions would need to have fallen since the year 2015. Even for SSP2-4.5, for which 2°C does get crossed, methane emissions would need to fall.

So, have methane levels fallen since 2015?

The image on the right shows NOAA globally averaged marine surface monthly means up to the most recent one which is April 2021. The NOAA annual mean methane data are:
in 2015: 1834 ppb
in 2016: 1843 ppb
in 2017: 1850 ppb
in 2018: 1857 ppb
in 2019: 1866 ppb (most recent IPCC level)
in 2020: 1879 ppb

Note also that above NOAA data are for global mean marine surface readings. At higher altitudes, even higher levels show up. The combination image below illustrates this, showing that the MetOp-1 satellite recorded a mean global methane level of 1956 ppb at 293 mb on September 2, 2021, am (panel left). The image in the right panel shows that the same satellite recorded much lower mean global methane levels, i.e. of 1894 ppb, closer to sea level, i.e. at 586 mb, on September 5, 2021, pm, while peak methane levels were as high as 2738 ppb and much methane was showing up over the Arctic Ocean. 


Ominously, methane reached very high peak levels recently. The Metop-2 satellite recorded a peak methane level of 3422 ppb at 469 mb on October 3, 2021, pm.

The image on the right shows high recent monthly average methane levels recorded at Barrow, Alaska. While this may not be representative for global methane levels, it does constitute a frightening warning of what may eventuate.

Stronger methane releases from subsea permafrost can be expected, says a paper by Natalia Shakhova et al. A 1000-fold methane increase could occur, resulting in a rise of as much as 6°C within 80 years, with more to follow after that, according to a paper by Atsushi Obata et al.

Seafloor methane releases could be triggered by strong winds causing an influx of warm, salty water into the Arctic ocean (see this earlier post and this page). Since little hydroxyl is present in the atmosphere over the Arctic, it is much harder for this methane to get broken down.

Even relatively small methane releases could cause tremendous heating, if they reach the stratosphere. Methane rises from the Arctic Ocean concentrated in plumes, pushing away the aerosols and gases that slow down the rise of methane elsewhere, which enables methane erupting from the Arctic Ocean to rise straight up fast and reach the stratosphere. IPCC AR6 gives methane a lifetime of 11.8 years. IPCC TAR gave stratospheric methane a lifetime of 120 years, adding that less than 7% of methane did reach the stratosphere at the time. 


The MetOp-1 satellite recorded a mean global methane level of 1956 ppb on September 11, 2021 am, at 293 mb. This corresponds with an altitude of some 9 km, which is where the Stratosphere starts at the North Pole. The conversion table shows that the Tropopause, which separates the Troposphere from the Stratosphere, is lower over the North Pole (at about 9 km altitude) than over the Equator (17 km altitude). 

[ click on images to enlarge ]
Mind you, the IPCC report does include some frightening images, such as one with a temperature rise of up to 17.5°C by 2300 (Figure 4.40), and one with CO₂ levels approaching 1200 ppm around 2100, corresponding with a temperature rise of up to 8°C (Figure 4.3).

What the IPCC doesn't mention is that at 1200 ppm CO₂e the clouds tipping point would get crossed that results in an additional 8°C temperature rise. With a high rise in methane levels and the GWP for methane calculated over a short horizon, such a huge temperature rise could eventuate within a few years time.

[ from earlier post ]
The IPCC downplays the methane threat by simply excluding the potential for a high rise in methane levels, while using a 100-year GWP for methane and while also waving away the potential for strong methane releases from oceans to the atmosphere.

For a really high methane emissions scenario, the image on the right shows a trend that is based on NOAA 2006-2020 annual global mean marine surface methane data and that points at a mean of 3893 ppb getting crossed by the end of 2026, a level less than twice as high as the recent 1956 ppb mean methane level.

Such a high mean methane level by 2026 cannot be ruled out, given the rapid recent growth in mean annual methane levels and with double-digit growth sustained beyond 2020 to date. It is deceptive to assume that methane levels have fallen and will continue to fall, the more so since the IPCC doesn't point at the most effective policies to achieve reductions in methane emissions.

By how much would such a doubling of the methane level raise the total carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) level for greenhouse gases? A methane level of 3893 ppb would translate into 583.95 ppm CO₂e (at a GWP for methane of 150 for a 9-year horizon) or 778.6 ppm CO₂e (at a GWP for methane of 200 for a 5-year horizon). 

The image on the right shows trends based on IPCC AR6 GWP values pointing at a GWP for methane of 150 for a 9-year horizon and pointing at an even higher GWP for a shorter horizon. A short horizon is quite appropriate given that the above trend points at the possibility of such a high level for methane getting reached by 2026. 

Even with less methane, when using a short horizon for the GWP of methane and adding the impact of further greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, etc.), the 1200 ppm CO₂e clouds tipping point could get crossed by 2026. 

As said, the IPCC AR6 uses SSPs to depict rises or falls for emissions. For methane, emissions would need to have fallen since 2015 for both the SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 scenarios. The same goes for nitrous oxide, as the top panel of the image on the right indicates (see also this version).

Instead, however, as the image in the bottom panel indicates, recent nitrous oxide concentrations appear to follow a polynomial (blue) trend, rather than a linear (green) trend. In other words, growth in nitrous oxide releases is also accelerating.

Without implementation of effective policies, emissions cannot be expected to fall. Moreover, emission reductions alone will be insufficient to avoid a possibly sharp rise in temperature over the next few years. Sadly, the IPCC fails to outline pathways to improve the situation. 

Given that humans will likely go extinct with a 3°C rise, and a 5°C rise will likely end most life on Earth, the IPCC could have given a little more warning that a huge temperature rise may happen over the next few years.

Natural variability acts as a catalyst in this case. Within a few years time, sunspots will be reaching the peak of their cycle, and they are looking stronger than forecast.

An upcoming El Niño could raise surface temperatures significantly. The image below indicates that the difference between the top of El Niño and the bottom of La Niña could be more than half a degree Celsius. 


The image on the right indicates that the current La Niña is forecast to end early 2022. As temperatures keep rising, ever more frequent strong El Niño events are likely to occur, as confirmed by a recent study. Authors also confirm concerns that this IPCC report has downplayed the threat that a super El Nino event could occur soon.

Another large contribution to the upcoming temperature rise is the falling away of the cooling provided by sulphur that is currently co-emitted by industries such as coal-fired power plants, shipping and smelters. 

As cleaner alternatives become more economic, and as calls for cleaner air become stronger, this could result in a strong temperature rise soon, as discussed at the aerosols page

As illustrated by the bar on the right, there are many further elements that could dramatically push up the temperature soon. Altogether, the rise from pre-industrial could increase to more than 18°C by 2026

Decline of Arctic snow and ice can result in huge albedo losses, loss of latent heat buffer, jet stream changes, more and more extreme weather events, and more. Slowing down of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and increasing ocean stratification can result in less heat getting transferred from the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean, as also described at this page.

One of the largest threats is seafloor methane and despite repeated warning from some of the best experts in the field, the IPCC simply waves away this threat. This and other elements in the bar have been discussed in detail in many earlier posts such as this one and on the extinction page

Given these huge threats, how could the IPCC give the impression that there was a “carbon budget” to divide? The IPCC downplays the size, speed and ferocity of the temperature rise in many ways. What motivates the IPCC do this? One reason could be that the IPCC seeks to create the perception that there was such a “carbon budget” left to be divided among polluters, so they could comfortably keep adding further pollution for another decade or more. 

Sam Carana, restating a 2013 quote:
[ from the Quotes page ]

“There is no carbon budget to divide between polluters, instead there is just a huge debt of CO₂ to be removed from the atmosphere and the oceans. Comprehensive and effective action must be taken to combat run-away warming.”

It should have been obvious by now that there is no “carbon 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 simply inappropriate. All efforts should be made to cut emissions, including ending current subsidies for fossil fuel and livestock, while carbon could and should additionally be removed from the atmosphere and oceans. And even then, it's questionable whether any species, let alone humans, will be able to survive the coming decade, so additional action will need to be taken as well. 

[ see the extinction page ]

Excluding the most appropriate policy tools, while instead advocating polluting pathways  

The IPCC creates a perception that pollution could continue for decades to come, by downplaying the temperature rise and by downplaying the threat of a huge rise within years, while promoting the idea that there was a “carbon budget” to be divided among polluters that would enable polluters to keep polluting for decades to come. Again, the IPCC has failed to do what the Paris Agreement calls for, i.e. for the IPCC to specify the pathways that will give the world a better future, specifically the policies that are needed to facilitate a better future. 

In the video below, Guy McPherson also discusses the report. 



Conclusions

This IPCC report should be returned to be rewritten, to instead focus on the best policies to facilitate the necessary changes. The scientific evidence in favor of what needs to be done is overwhelming, from all kinds of perspectives, while it's also simply the right thing to do. Most effective are feebates, i.e. imposing fees on polluting products while using the revenues to support rebates on better alternatives, and feebates are especially effective when implemented locally. Studies on the effectiveness of feebates were made available as early as 2005 and feebates have been discussed by the IMF, the OECD and the UN, and have been implemented in various ways, e.g. in the Clean Car Programme in New Zealand. The situation is dire and calls for the most comprehensive and effective action, as described at the Climate Plan


Links

• IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways (SR1.5)
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/

• Paris Agreement, adopted 2015
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/12/paris-agreement.html

• Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial - by Samantha Bova et al. (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

• Changing El Niño–Southern Oscillation in a warming climate - by Wenju Cai et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00199-z

• IPCC report may have underplayed risk of freak El Nino and La Nina events 
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-may-have-underplayed-risk-of-freak-el-ninos-and-la-ninas-20210820-p58klm.html

• IMF: Chapter 1. What Is the Best Policy Instrument for Reducing CO2 Emissions?, in: Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change - by Ruud de Mooij et al. (2012) 

• OECD: Are environmental tax policies beneficial? Learning from programme evaluation studies 

• UN: Policies and Legal Options to Promote the Energy Efficiency of Private Motor Vehicles 

• Feebates: An effective regulatory instrument for cost-constrained environmental policy - by  Kenneth Johnson 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421505002776

• NZ Ministry of Transport: Vehicle Purchase Feebate Scheme

• Clean Car Programme in New Zealand

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

• A Temperature Rise Of More Than 18 Degrees Celsius By 2026?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/06/could-temperatures-keep-rising.html

• Overshoot or Omnicide?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/03/overshoot-or-omnicide.html

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

• Pre-industrial
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/pre-industrial.html 

• Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html

• Quotes
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/quotes.html

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

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

• Latent Heat
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/latent-heat.html

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

• When will we die?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/when-will-we-die.html

• Most Important Message Ever
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/07/most-important-message-ever.html

• Methane levels threaten to skyrocket
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/09/methane-levels-threaten-to-skyrocket.html

• Just do NOT tell them the monster exists
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/10/just-do-not-tell-them-the-monster-exists.html

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

• 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

• 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

• What Does Runaway Warming Look Like?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/10/what-does-runaway-warming-look-like.html

• Ten Dangers of Global Warming
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/ten-dangers-of-global-warming.html

• AGU poster, AGU Fall Meeting 2011
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/agu-poster.html