Resources Research

Culture and systems of knowledge, cultivation and food, population and consumption

Posts Tagged ‘Arctic

Human influence on climate system is clear, says IPCC summary

with 2 comments

IPCC_AR5_blue_strip_smallMajor update: On 30 September 2013 the IPCC released the Final Draft Report of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013. This is commonly called ‘The Physical Science Basis’. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment undertaken by Working Group I.

The Final Draft consists of 19 documents – 14 chapters, three annexes, a technical summary and a changes summary. These you will find via this list:

01 Technical Summary (6.05 MB)
02 Ch01 Introduction (2.66 MB)
03 Ch02 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface (10.40 MB)
04 Ch03 Observations: Ocean (18.10 MB)
05 Ch04 Observations: Cryosphere (5.18 MB)
06 Ch05 Information from Paleoclimate Archives (4.78 MB)
07 Ch06 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles (8.90 MB)
08 Ch07 Clouds and Aerosols (3.48 MB)
09 Ch08 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing (2.83 MB)
10 Ch09 Evaluation of Climate Models (6.81 MB)
11 Ch10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional (4.39 MB)
12 Ch11 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability (5.45 MB)
13 Ch12 Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility (25.50 MB)
14 Ch13 Sea Level Change (6.17 MB)
15 Ch14 Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change (7.74 MB)
16 Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections (36.50 MB)
17 Annex II: Glossary (0.80 MB)
18 Annex III: Acronyms and Regional Abbreviations (0.50 MB)
19 Changes to the Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment (0.20 MB)

Map of the observed surface temperature change from 1901 to 2012 derived from temperature trends. The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012. For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. Source: IPCC

Map of the observed surface temperature change from 1901 to 2012 derived from temperature trends. The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012. For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. Source: IPCC

Early statements and releases from the Twelfth Session of Working Group I which was held from 2013 September 23-26 in Stockholm, Sweden. The press release about the human influence on the climate system is here, which has said “this is evident in most regions of the globe”.

The IPCC has also provided headline statements from the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group contribution to AR5. At the Session, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) was approved and the underlying scientific and technical assessment accepted. (See the earlier post on the AR5 process.)

IPCC_AR5_WG!_strips1For the Fifth Assessment Report, the scientific community has defined a set of four new scenarios. These are called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). These four RCPs include one ‘mitigation scenario’ leading to a very low radiative forcing level (RCP2.6). (Radiative forcing is the change in net irradiance; it is used to assess and compare the anthropogenic and natural drivers of climate change). There are two ‘stabilisation scenarios’ (RCP4.5 and RCP6), and one scenario with very high greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5). The RCPs can thus represent a range of 21st century climate policies.

IPCC_AR5_WG!_strips2

Advertisements

Arctic report card 2012

leave a comment »

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has emphasised the “dramatic impact of persistent warming in the Arctic”, a region that many earth science institutes and networks have said witnessed numerous record-setting melting events in 2012.

The introduction to the ‘report card’ itself – this is run by the USA’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through its Climate Program Office, Arctic Research Program – said that the Arctic region continued to break records in 2012. Among these records broken is the loss of summer sea ice, spring snow cover, and melting of the Greenland ice sheet. “This was true even though air temperatures in the Arctic were unremarkable relative to the last decade.” said the Arctic Report Card 2012.

The report has mentioned with particular concern:

1. Record low snow extent and low sea ice extent occurred in June and September, respectively.
2. Growing season length is increasing along with tundra greenness and above-ground biomass. Below the tundra, record high permafrost temperatures occurred in northernmost Alaska.
3. Duration of melting was the longest observed yet on the Greenland ice sheet, and a rare, nearly ice sheet-wide melt event occurred in July.
4. Massive phytoplankton blooms below summer sea ice suggest previous estimates of ocean primary productivity might be ten times too low.
5. Arctic fox is close to extinction in Fennoscandia and vulnerable to further changes in the lemming cycle and the encroaching Red fox.
6. Severe weather events included extreme cold and snowfall in Eurasia, and two major storms with deep central pressure and strong winds offshore of western and northern Alaska.

Written by makanaka

January 6, 2013 at 21:11

How business-as-usual is shutting climate out of the Durban negotiations

leave a comment »

The IPCC released an early report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters in time for Durban. Pity they haven't paid attention. Photo: IPCC

The Durban climate negotiations will plod noisily towards 9 December and end with nothing to show for it all, at this rate. A handful of wealthy countries – including notably the United States – are now seeking to move the goalposts. They want to dismantle the rules for developed countries’ emissions reductions, shift the burden to developing countries, and renege on the Bali Roadmap. In the process, they are trying to end the Kyoto Protocol, and even the Convention, and replace it with a weak, ineffective “pledge and review” system that may take years to negotiate. The Durban climate change negotiations are a clash between those who believe that the world deserves and needs a science- and rules-based multilateral climate system to tackle perhaps the greatest challenge to face humanity, and those who are seeking to dismantle the existing one.

The replacement of George W Bush by Barack Obama as US president in 2008 has seen a change in rhetoric on climate change coming from the White House, but no major policy shift regarding the Kyoto Protocol and the development of a successor agreement. The priority has remained to ensure that nothing is agreed that either impinges on the interests of US corporations or harms the economic and geo-strategic position of US imperialism against its rivals.

Climate models project more frequent hot days throughout the 21st century. In many regions, the time between '20-year' (unusually) warm days will decrease. From the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, brings together representatives of the world’s governments, international organizations and civil society”. The UNFCCC says the “discussions will seek to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December”. The UNFCCC is either misguidedly optimistic, or uses the words “advance” and “balanced” differently from the way we do.

In 2009, CO2 emissions in developing countries grew at 3.3%, primarily due to continued economic growth and increased coal demand, while in developed countries emissions fell sharply by 6.5%, mostly attributable to the decreased use of coal, oil and natural gas as a consequence of the global economic recession and financial crises. Emissions in developed countries in 2009 therewith fell 6.4% below their 1990 level. 1990 is often used as a reference year for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, for example in the 1992 UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This makes sense, as 1990 was the year when UN-steered climate change negotiations started, and when the issue first received prominence on the international political agenda.

All that talk, in the interests of the 99% we hope.

A closer look at the IEA data reveals interesting trends. The five largest CO2 emitters – China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan, in the order of emissions – account for about half of the world’s population, emissions, and gross domestic product (GDP); however, the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP as well as per capita are not at all equal across the five. The two largest emitters, China and the United States, together contributed 41% of the world’s emissions in 2009, and both almost have the same share compared to one another. On a per capita level, though, the average American emitted more than three times as much CO2 as the average Chinese citizen.

"Before examining the main trends and implications of the 450 Scenario, it is important to highlight briefly why the scenario is needed. It is because neither the New Policies Scenario, our central scenario, nor the Current Policies Scenario puts us on a future trajectory for greenhouse-gas emissions that is consistent with limiting the increase in global temperature to no more than 2°C, the level climate scientists say is likely to avoid catastrophic climate change. The 450 Scenario illustrates one plausible path to that objective." From International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2011, Chapter 6, Climate change and the 450 Scenario

The Obama administration now insists that there is no pressing need for a post-Kyoto treaty restricting carbon emissions. Jonathan Pershing, US deputy envoy for climate change, declared earlier this week in South Africa: “I’m not sure that the issue of legal form will be resolved here, or needs to be resolved here.” He hailed the voluntary pledges to reduce emissions that were announced at last year’s UN climate change summit in Cancún, Mexico. “To my way of thinking, that’s an enormous way forward in solving the problem,” he said. These remarks underscore Washington’s key role in sabotaging any progress toward a new climate treaty.

This is a step beyond grossly irresponsible. Current levels of warming have already begun triggering major “tipping points” in the Earth’s system – such as Arctic methane releases, Amazon dieback, and the loss of icesheets. 2°C of warming, as proposed by some governments, threatens to tip a cascade of events that will cause warming to spin out of control. We have known since 1986 that warming “beyond 1°C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non?linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage”, the effects of which we’re seeing already.*

But rich countries risk climate anarchy. To address this crisis many countries – particularly developing countries – seek an agreement in Durban based on science, on the existing legally binding and multilateral system reflected in the Climate Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and on the deal agreed by all countries in the Bali Roadmap.

"Energy-related CO2 emissions in the OECD decline by 50% between 2009 and 2035 in the 450 Scenario, to reach 6 Gt, and their share of global emissions falls from 42% in 2009 to 28% in 2035. CO2 emissions in non-OECD countries fall by a much smaller 9% over the Outlook period, to reach 14.3 Gt in 2035, though this is still a substantial 10.0 Gt of CO2 abatement, relative to the NewPolicies Scenario, in 2035." From International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2011, Chapter 6, Climate change and the 450 Scenario

A report released on Monday by the British-based World Development Movement detailed the testimonies of “insiders” at the Copenhagen and Cancún events. The report stated: “The US said they would deny climate finance to Bolivia and Ecuador because they had objected to the Copenhagen accord proposal. The EU’s Connie Hedegaard had also suggested that the small island-state countries could be ‘our best allies because they need finance’.” One official explained that developing country negotiators who come to be regarded by the major powers as a nuisance “are taken out of delegations for one reason or another, or booted upstairs, or suddenly are transferred, or lose their jobs, as a result of external pressures, usually in the form of some kind of bribe (not necessarily money), or exchange.”

Furthermore, a lucrative trade and speculation in carbon credits, centred in London and Frankfurt, has emerged through the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This mechanism was established and developed within the legal framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The sovereign debt crisis in Europe has already badly affected the carbon trade, with the value of credits plunging in recent weeks. A purely voluntary framework for emissions, as urged by Washington, could further undermine the carbon credit market, in which British and European banks have a significant stake. Amid the manoeuvres of the major powers and the financiers of climate gimmicks, the representatives of the world’s smaller, impoverished states-including some whose very existence is threatened by climate change-are sidelined, bullied, and manipulated at the UN summits.

Rather than honour their obligations, many developed countries have now indicated their clear intention to avoid binding obligations to reduce their climate pollution by killing the Kyoto Protocol and replacing it with a weaker ‘pledge and review’ system. At the same time, they are seeking to retain and expand their favored elements of the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. market mechanisms) into a new agreement, and shift their responsibilities onto developing countries.

A ‘pledge and review’ system would mean that the rich countries most responsible for the problem would only reduce their emissions according to political pressures at home, not according to the increasingly dire scientific realities. There would be no internationally binding commitments, no comparability of efforts among developed countries, and no assurance of adequate efforts. The system of common rules and international compliance in the Kyoto Protocol that give meaning to these commitments would be abandoned. Such an approach would effectively deregulate the climate regime, thereby ensuring business as usual and a deregulated approach that could even be written into international law.