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.
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.
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).
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.
The above image shows a forecast for August 2023 of the sea surface temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius, from tropicaltidbits.com. The forecast shows temperatures that are higher than average (based on 1984-2009 model climatology) for the tropical Pacific region indicative of an El Niño event.
By contrast, the above forecast for November 2022 shows temperatures in the tropical Pacific region that are much lower than average, indicating that we're still in the depths of a persistent La Niña.
By comparison, the above nullschool.net image shows the sea surface temperature anomaly for August 15, 2022, i.e. less than three months ago, when sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific region were similar to what they are now, while anomalies in the Arctic were much higher than they are now.
Moving from the bottom of the current La Niña to the peak of a strong El Niño could make a difference of more than half a degree Celsius, as indicated by the image below, adapted from NOAA.
The NOAA image on the right confirms that we're still in the depths of a persistent La Niña. NOAA predicts a transition out of La Niña from now on. Note that the NOAA forecast goes up to June/July/August 2023.
Sunspots
The upcoming El Niño looks set to coincide with a peak in sunspots. The peak in sunspots looks set to reach a higher than expected maximum impact around July 2025. An analysis in an earlier post concludes that the rise in sunspots from May 2020 to July 2025 could make a difference of some 0.15°C.
Accordingly, the impact of the upcoming El Niño could make a difference of more than 0.5°C over the next few years. In addition, there will be a growing impact of sunspots, forecast to peak in July 2025.
Methane keeps rising at accelerating pace
Furthermore, there are a number of events and developments that could additionally speed up the temperature rise, including greenhouse gas emissions that keep rising. Methane is particularly important, due to its high potency as a greenhouse gas, and its abundance has also been growing at accelerating pace over the past few years.
The above image, adapted from Copernicus, shows a forecast for November 14, 2022, 03 UTC at 500 hPa, with high levels of methane showing up over the Arctic.
The above image shows a peak methane level of 2687 ppb (parts per billion) recorded by the NOAA-20 satellite at 399.1 mb on November 3, 2022 AM.
The above image shows that recent methane daily averages at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, are between 1900 ppb and 2000 ppb (recent monthly average is above 1950 ppb).
The above image shows that recent methane daily averages at Barrow, Alaska are even higher, between 2000 ppb and 2100 ppb.
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.
Further events and developments that could speed up the temperature rise
When including further events and developments, the clouds tipping point could be crossed in a matter of years and even with far less methane than the above trend warns about.
As an earlier post mentions, the upcoming temperature rise on land on the Northern Hemisphere could be so high that it will cause much traffic, transport and industrial activity to grind to a halt, resulting in a reduction in aerosols that are currently masking the full wrath of global warming.
The post points at a recent analysis that finds a stronger impact than previously thought for liquid water path adjustment, which supports the 2016 warning that by 2026 there could be a 1.9°C temperature rise due to a decrease in cooling aerosols, while there could be additionally be a 0.6°C temperature rise due to an increase in warming aerosols and gases as a result of more biomass and waste burning and forest fires by 2026.
Furthermore, the 2016 analysis warns about an additional temperature rise of up to 1.6°C due to loss of Arctic sea ice and permafrost, and associated changes.
When including the temperature rise that has already unfolded from pre-industrial and the impact of all such events and developments, the temperature could rise by more than 10°C over the next few years, corresponding with a CO₂e of over 1200 ppm, which implies that the total temperature rise could be as high as 18.44°C by 2026.
Keep in mind that humans are likely to go extinct with a rise of 3°C, as illustrated by the image below, from an analysis discussed in an earlier post.
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.
• NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Monthly Global Climate Report for October 2022, retrieved November 16, 2022
How can the problems of war, climate collapse and famine best be addressed?
Earlier this year, the U.N. issued a warning about famine, pointing out that war is compounding the problems of climate disruption and famine, adding that the "main costs to farmers are fertilizers and energy". The U.N. statement follows many news media reports about the rising cost of living.
How can these problems best be addressed? For more than two decades, two sets of feebates have been recommended to help achieve agriculture reform and a rapid transition to clean, renewable energy, as depicted in the images in this post and as discussed in many earlier posts and the text below.
Agricultural Reform
Agriculture uses half of habitable land. Agriculture uses 70% to 90% of the freshwater supply. Most farmland is used to produce meat and diary. A 2019 Greenpeace analysis found over 71% of EU farmland to be dedicated to meat and dairy. Much agricultural land is used unsustainably in many ways; there is growing dependence on chemical fertilizers and weedkillers & herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides and other pesticides; there is also a growing dependency on fossil fuel in many agricultural and food-related activities; and there is a growing demand for water. This causes huge emissions of greenhouse gases, pollution with toxic compounds, depletion of groundwater, salinification and erosion of soil and loss of soil nutrients and soil carbon content, and loss of diversity of many of the plants, the wildlife and the microorganisms that helped the world population grow to 8 billion people.
Changing from food that is rich in meat and dairy to vegan-organic food can free up large areas of land that can instead be used for other purposes such as community gardens and food forests. It can bring down the cost of food and it can, in combination with biochar, restore the soil's carbon, moisture and nutrients content.
Instead of adding chemical nitrogen fertilizers - typically produced with natural gas - in annually-planted monocultures, it's better to have a diversity of vegetation including a variety of perennial plants such as legumes and trees. Furthermore, pyrolyzing biowaste should be encouraged, as this reduces fire hazards and produces biochar that can be added to soil to sequester carbon and to increase nutrients and moisture in the soil. According to Schmidt et al., 400,000 pyrolysis plants need to be built to process 3.8 billion tons of biowaste annually.
Local councils could encourage this by adding extra fees to rates for land where soil carbon falls, while using the revenue for rebates on rates for land where soil carbon rises.
That way, adding 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.
Two sets of feebates can strongly reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, specifically carbon dioxide (C₂O), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O).
The contribution of agriculture to emissions of carbon dioxide and especially methane is huge. The image on the right illustrates the difference between using a Gobal Warming Potential (GWP) for methane of 171 over a few years versus 28 over 100 years.
Nitrous oxide is also important, as a potent greenhouse gas and also as an ozone depleting substance (ODS). The impact of nitrous oxide as an ODS has grown relative to the impact of CFCs, as the abundance of nitrous oxide has kept rising in the atmosphere.
The IPCC in AR6 gives nitrous oxide a lifetime of 109 years and a GWP of 273. A 2017 study warns about increased nitrous oxide emissions from Arctic peatlands after permafrost thaw.
Furthermore, a recent study finds that nitrous oxide emissions contribute strongly to cirrus clouds, especially when ammonia, nitric acid and sulfuric acid are present together. Cirrus clouds exerts a net positive radiative forcing of about 5 W m⁻², according to IPCC AR6.
Much of current nitrous oxide emissions is caused by nitrogen fertilizers. Legumes include beans, peas, peanuts, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, tamarind, alfalfa, and clover. Legumes can naturally fix nitrogen to the soil, thus reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizer and in turn reducing the associated emissions, including emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.
Adding nitrogen fertilizer can also cause the formation of dead zones in lakes and oceans. Dead zones occur when the water gets too many nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen from fertilizers, resulting in oxygen depletion at the top layer of oceans, which can also increase nitrous oxide releases.
In the video on the right, Jim McHenry discusses ways to improve the situation.
All too often, chemical nitrogen fertilizers are added unnecessarily. The intent may be to help the plants grow, e.g. when leaves of plants turn yellow or when there is little growth. But it may actually be that the plants get too little water because the roots of the plants were damaged or too short, or that there was too little shade and too much sun. Excessive nitrogen fertilization and irrigation can then result in a lot of green leaves, but this growth can come at the expense of good food.
Instead, with a good mix of vegetation, there's little or no need to add chemical nitrogen fertilizer, since nitrogen-fixing plants such as legumes can help fast-growing plants get the necessary nitrogen, while the fast-growing plants provide shade for the legumes and the soil. Next to providing shade, the tall, sturdy stalks of plants such as corn can give the vines of beans something to attach themselves to. Fast-growing pants can provide a lot of shade to other plants and to the soil, thus keeping the soil moist, while also preventing the infiltration and growth of weeds and while also deterring pests with their spiny leaves.
Trees can lower surface temperatures by providing shade and by holding colder air under their canopy, thus avoiding extreme temperatures that could also cause the soil to get too dry. The roots of trees prevent erosion and guide rainwater to reach greater depth, thus avoiding that the soil gets too wet in case of heavy rain. Trees then pump water up from deep in the ground with their roots and much of the water comes out again through leaves (evapotranspiration), which stimulates rainfall. Furthermore, trees release pheromones (that attract pollinators) and other aerosols such as terpenes. Trees are typically narrower at the top and wider below, and through their shape and by standing up high they can guide the wind upward, while water vapor released from leaves also helps lift these aerosols into the air. Raindrops forming around these aerosols will further stimulate the formation of lower cloud decks that provide shade, that reflect sunlight back into space and that produce more rainfall locally.
Furthermore, olivine sand can be used to create borders for gardens, footpaths and bicycle paths. Where needed, olivine sand could also be added on top of biochar, as the light color of olivine sand reflects more sunlight, while olivine can also soak up excess water and sequester carbon, while adding nutrients to the soil. By redesigning urban areas, more space can be used for trees, which also reduces the urban heat island effect and thus lowers temperatures.
Also important is the transition to a vegan-organic diet. This can dramatically reduce the need for land and water, while additionally reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A good mix and variety of vegetation can help each of the plants through symbiotic interaction grow an abundance of vegan-organic food locally in a sustainable way.
Pyrolysis of biowaste is recommended as this can turn most carbon into biochar, resulting in high carbon sequestration rates, and increased capacity of the soil to retain carbon, nutrients and moisture, thus reducing erosion, fire hazards and greenhouse gas emissions, while increasing vegetation growth resulting in additional drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere.
Most of the biowaste can be pyrolyzed and returned to the soil in the form of biochar. Some of the biowaste can also be used to construct buildings. Instead of cutting down the largest and most healthy trees to do so, which now all too often happens, it makes more sense to instead remove only dead trees and biowaste from the forest floor. Such use of biowaste could provide funding for the process of waste removal from the forest floor. For most biowaste (including kitchen and garden waste, and sewage), it makes sense to turn it into biochar that is added to the soil.
"The carbon content of biochar varies with feedstock and production conditions from as low as 7% (gasification of biosolids) to 79% (pyrolysis of wood at above 600 °C). Of this initial carbon, 63-82% will remain unmineralized in soil after 100 years at the global mean annual cropland-temperature of 14.9 °C", a 2021 study concludes.
The above image shows how policies described in the Climate Plan can reduce the cost of energy and the cost of food, and facilitate the necessary transformation of society. The image shows examples of feebates that can help transform society in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, oceans, waste management and construction (center panel). The image also shows examples of local feebates to facilitate the transition to clean, renewable energy (top panel), as further discussed below.
Reducing the Cost of Energy and the Cost of Conflict
Much land is currently used for mining and drilling, refining and transport of fossil fuel (including roads, railways, ports and military protection to secure supply lines).
Much land is also used to grow crops and trees that are burned for energy, such as wood used for heating, wood fed into power plants and crops grown for biofuel to power vehicles.
Mining, drilling and power plants are also large users of water. They need a lot of water, mainly for cooling, and they can pollute the water they use.
Instead, by using electricity that is generated by wind turbines and solar panels, the total amount of water and the total area of land that is needed to produce energy can be reduced dramatically.
Currently, much fossil fuel is transported by ship. International shipping emissions are not included in national totals of greenhouse gas emissions, despite the huge part of international shipping in global trade, carrying 70% of that trade by value and more than 80% by volume. Near the coast, batteries are increasingly powering shipping, but in international waters, shipping is almost entirely powered by fossil fuel, mainly bunker oil. Some 43% of maritime transport is busy merely moving fuel across the globe, so terminating fuel usage on land could in itself almost halve international shipping emissions.
In addition to commercial emissions caused by shipping of fuel, there are also military emissions that are excluded in national totals, such as international use by the military of bunker fuels and jet fuel, greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption of bases abroad and the manufacture of equipment used by the military abroad. A large part of the military is busy securing and protecting global supply lines for fossil fuel, while burning huge amounts of fuel in the process. A 2019 analysis found that the US military's global supply chain and heavy reliance on carbon-based fuels make it the largest institutional consumer of oil and one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, more than many countries worldwide.
Disputes over possession of fossil fuel are behind many international conflicts. Instead, nations can each cater for their power needs more independently and securely by transitioning to clean, renewable energy. A large part of a nation's infrastructure is used to transport fuel domestically, including trucks driving on roads and highways, while also using tunnels and bridges, parking places and stations for refuelling, while additionally fuel is transported by trains, planes and vessels that need ports, railways stations and tracks, and a lot of fossil fuel is burned in the process of transporting the fuel and constructing and maintaining these facilities.
Furthermore, part of the wood from forests and crops from farmland is used to supply biofuel, for use either to power vehicles, for heating or as fuel for power plants. Reducing the use of fuel will therefore also reduce nations getting into conflict with other nations, not only conflict over the possession of fossil fuel and over water to cool power plants, but also conflict over land and water that is used for agriculture and forestry to grow biofuel.
The easiest way to reduce the cost of conflict is to take away the reason for conflict, which in this case is the use of land to produce fuel.
In the video below, Robert Llewellyn interviews Mark Jacobson about The Climate Crisis.
Clean, renewable energy in the form of electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is already more economic than burning fuel for energy. Shifting to clean energy will thus lower the cost of energy, while people will also be less burdened by the cost of associated conflicts, which is more than the cost of the military and police taking care to avoid conflict, as the cost is even larger than that if conflicts do escalate and cause destruction of infrastructure, damage to soil and ecosystems and loss of lives, health and livelihood for all involved.
The comprehensive and effective action proposed by the Climate Plan can terminate the use of fuel and thus also reduce conflict, while additionally reducing the threat of runaway warming, and while additionally providing many environmental benefits and further benefits such as the termination of perceived needs for military forces to police global fuel supply lines and associated infrastructure.
In conclusion, reducing the use of fuel will in itself further reduce demand for fuel and the cost of energy. Replacing fuel by clean, renewable energy can additionally cut the need for energy through greater efficiencies of electric motors, appliances and devices. As said, this will also reduce the need for land and water, and - this cannot be said enough - avoid or delay climate collapse and catastrophe.
Air Taxis and Urban Redesign can further facilitate the necessary transformation
Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) air taxis can be an important component of the transformation of the way we travel, live, work and eat.
Using eVTOL air taxis can reduce the need for roads and associated infrastructure, further freeing up land, while the transition to electricity generated with solar panels and wind turbines can additionally free up land that is now used by utilities and their associated infrastructure such as power plants, power poles and towers, communication poles, etc. This land can instead be used for community gardens, (food) forests, parks, etc.
This doesn't have to be an instant shift. In existing cities, there already is a strong and growing movement to restrict the use of cars in city centers, and to instead add more walkways and bikeways. In this case, the roads will still be there, it's just their usage that changes. Another example is pipelines. Many cities want to disconnect pipes that now supply natural gas to buildings, as it makes more sense to use electricity instead. The pipes will still be there, they just won't be used anymore, if at all. Digging up the pipes may make sense, e.g. to recover metals, but this may take some effort and time and it's therefore important that this issue is not used as an excuse to delay the rapid transition to the use of clean energy that is so urgently needed.
It's important to look at longer-term and more radical redesign. The transition toward greater use of air taxis enables space previously used for roads to instead be used for more walkways and bikeways, as well as for trees, community gardens, etc. This should be incorporated as part of wider and longer-term planning and redesign of urban areas.
In some places, this can lead to a more compact urban design, especially in city centers. After all, a lot of space becomes available as the use of roads for vehicle movements and for parking is reduced in an urban area, and this allows for more compact construction of new buildings and renovation of existing buildings that also reduces the distance between buildings, thus shortening the time it takes for trips by foot or bike in the city center, while there also will be plenty of opportunities for spaces to be created for air taxis to land and take off, e.g. in parks and on top of buildings.
At the same time, air taxis enable trips of up to a few hundred miles to be completed fast, while using little energy and causing little emissions. Furthermore, more remote places can be economically reached by air taxis without a need for roads to lead them to these places or for railway stations to be located nearby. Drone delivery of goods and air taxis can enable more people to live outside urban areas. More people will be able to have goods delivered to their home and to reach urban amenities if and when they want to, and more economically compared to using cars and roads.
The need for land and water to produce food and energy, and the need for land to transport goods and food can be reduced with the transitions to clean energy and to vegan-organic food. These transitions can also reduce the need for infrastructure such as pipelines and poles for water supply, sewage, communications and power. Instead, we can have solar panels, microgrids, WiFi, rainwater tanks, biochar units, food forests and community gardens.
The image below illustrates how policies recommended in the Climate Plan can further reduce the need for infrastructure by supporting eVTOL air taxis, while transforming the space thus gained into community gardens, walkways, bikeways, etc.
In conclusion, the situation can best be addressed through action as described in the Climate Plan, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration.
• Secretary-General Warns of Unprecedented Global Hunger Crisis, with 276 Million Facing Food Insecurity, Calling for Export Recovery, Debt Relief (June 24, 2022)
https://press.un.org/en/2022/sgsm21350.doc.htm
In 2020 and 2021, the global network of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) detected the largest within-year
increases (15 and 18 ppb, respectively) of
atmospheric methane (CH₄) since systematic
measurements began in the early 1980s.
[ IPCC/WMO data through 2021 ]
The image on the right illustrates methane's rise, showing IPCC and, more recently, WMO data. Methane reached 1908 parts per billion (ppb) in 2021, 262% of the 1750 level, while carbon dioxide (CO₂) reached 415.7 parts per million (ppm) in 2021, 149% of the 1750 level, and nitrous oxide (N₂O) reached 334.5 ppb, 124% of the 1750 level.
The WMO adds that analyses of measurements of the abundances
of atmospheric CH₄ and its stable carbon
isotope ratio ¹³C/¹²C (reported as δ¹³C(CH₄)) indicate that the increase in CH₄ since 2007 is associated with biogenic
processes.
Methane's rise has been accelerating since 2007, which makes this a scary suggestion, as increasing decomposition of plant material as a result of climate change is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that is hard to stop.
Another explanation, discussed in an earlier post, is that there was a slowdown from 1984 to 2004 in the rise of methane as a result of rising temperatures increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere, resulting in more hydroxyl decomposing more methane in the atmosphere in the 1990s (compared to the 1980s). Accordingly, while the rise in methane concentration appeared to slow down over those years, methane emissions actually kept growing and continued to do so at accelerating pace, but since an increasingly large part of methane was decomposed by hydroxyl, this continuing rise in methane emissions was overlooked.
This could still mean that plant material is now getting decomposed at higher rates, but an even larger danger is that methane emissions started to increase more strongly from the early 2000s due in part to more methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. In other words, while hydroxyl kept increasing, seafloor methane emissions kept increasing even faster, to the extent that methane emissions increasingly started to overwhelm this growth in hydroxyl, resulting in a stronger rise in overall methane abundance in the atmosphere.
Sadly, there are few measurements available for methane that could erupt from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, WMO and NOAA data that are used to calculate global means are typically taken at marine surface level, which may be appropriate for carbon dioxide that is present more strongly at sea surface level, but methane is much lighter and will rise quickly and accumulate at higher altitude, as indicated by the satellite images further below. Moreover, the lack of measurements of methane over the Arctic Ocean and at higher altitudes makes it hard to determine from where the methane originated. Much methane could originate from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean and rise to the Tropopause, while moving from there closer to the Equator, all largely without getting reported.
What's happening in 2022?
So, what's happening in 2022? Well, it appears that the rise in methane keeps accelerating, as illustrated by the image below showing daily average methane measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 2001.
The image below shows methane in situ measurements at Barrow, Alaska, indicating that methane is present in even higher abundance over the Arctic and that levels are rising fast over the Arctic.
The image below, adapted from Copernicus, shows a forecast for October 27, 2022, 03 UTC at 500 hPa. High levels of methane show up over the Arctic.
The MetOp-B satellite recorded a mean methane level of 1981 ppb at 293 mb on October 2, 2022 am, while plenty of methane was present over the Arctic Ocean at the three altitudes shown on compilation image below.
The MetOp-B satellite recorded a peak methane level of 2901 ppb at 293 mb on October 20, 2022 am, while plenty of methane was again present over the Arctic Ocean at the three altitudes shown on the compilation image below.
This supports the possibility that large amounts of methane are getting released from the Arctic Ocean, with even more to follow.
While the IPCC keeps hiding the potential for a huge rise in temperature by 2026, as discussed in an earlier post, a recently-published article points out that prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios.
How bad could it be? A 2016 analysis warned that there could be a temperature rise of more than 10°C from pre-industral by 2026. An additional danger is that, as methane keeps rising, the clouds tipping point could be crossed even earlier than in 2026. Let's re-evaluate these dangers.
The above 1981 ppb mean methane level translates into 396.2 ppm CO₂e at a 1-year GWP of 200. Destabilization of sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean could cause a large abrupt burst of methane to enter the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean. A doubling of the mean methane level could push up the mean methane level to twice as much, to 792.4 ppm CO₂e, which is only 407.6 ppm CO₂ away from the 1200 ppm CO₂e clouds tipping point that on its own could push up the temperature by some 8°C globally. This gap of 407.6 ppm CO₂ could be more than covered by the current carbon dioxide level. The September 2022 CO₂ level at Mauna Loa was higher than that, i.e. 415.96 ppm. Since the CO₂ level at Mauna Loa in September typically is at its lowest point for the year, this implies that a large abrupt burst of methane could cause the the clouds tipping point to be instantly crossed due to methane and CO₂ alone.
Note that there are additional forcers, such as CFCs, while there are also further events and developments that could additionally speed up the temperature rise, as further discussed below. The scary situation therefore is that the clouds tipping point could be instantly crossed with a burst of methane that is far smaller in size than the methane already in the atmosphere. Such a burst of methane could be released at any time, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one.
That's not even the worst-case scenario. In the above calculation, global mean methane levels are used. However, there is a possibility that low-lying clouds could at first break up and vanish abruptly at one specific point, due to a high methane peak, and that this could lead to break-up of neighboring clouds, propagating break-up across the globe and thus pushing up the temperature rise virtually instantly by some 8°C globally.
The MetOp satellite recorded a peak methane level of 3644 ppb and a mean level of 1944 ppb at 367 mb on November 21, 2021, pm, as discussed in an earlier post. This 3644 ppb translates into 728.8 ppm CO₂e, again at a 1-year GWP of 200. This is 471.2 ppm CO₂e away from the clouds tipping point and that 471.2 ppm CO₂e could be covered by the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and CFCs currently in the atmosphere.
How high could the temperature rise be by 2026?
There are a number of scenarios that could cause the clouds tipping point to be crossed soon, e.g. if the rise in methane kept following a trend as depicted in the image below, showing WMO 2015-2021 global annual surface mean methane abundance, with a trend added.
[ click on images to enlarge ]
The trend points at a potential mean global abundance of methane of more than 700 ppm CO₂e by the end of 2026, implying that when including further forcers the clouds tipping point could be crossed in 2026. Furthermore, the trend points at 1200 ppm CO₂e getting crossed in 2028 due to the forcing of methane alone.
Even without such an increase in methane, a huge temperature rise could eventuate by 2026, first of all due to a cataclysmic alignment of El Niño and sunspots.
We are currently in the depths of a persistent La Niña, as illustrated by the image on the right, adapted from NOAA, and this suppresses the temperature rise at the moment.
The next El Niño is already overdue, so the peak of the next El Niño may well coincide with a peak in sunspots which look set to reach a higher than expected maximum impact around July 2025. The rise in sunspots from May 2020 to July 2025 could make a difference of some 0.15°C, concluded an earlier post.
Moving from the bottom of the current La Niña to the peak of a strong El Niño could make a difference of more than half a degree Celsius, as indicated by the image below, adapted from NOAA.
Therefore, the rise due to the combined impact of El Niño and sunspots could be 0.65°C by 2025. When adding this to the temperature rise that has already occurred and that, when measured from pre-industrial could be as high as 2.29°C, the total land-ocean global temperature rise could be as high as 2.94°C by 2025, while the rise on land on the Northern Hemisphere could peak at more than 3°C above pre-industrial, noting that when there was a strong El Niño in February 2016, the land-only monthly anomaly from 1880-1920 was 2.95°C, as illustrated by the image below.
Such a huge rise could cause heatwaves and droughts that could result in a huge peak in power demand, as everyone switches on their air conditioners, while at the same time rivers could either dry up or their water could become too hot to cool power plants. This could bring the grid down, which would mean that coal-fired power plants would stop emitting sulfates.
This could mean that equipment and appliances that need electricity such as heaters and air conditioners could stop working. Electric pumps could stop working, so there may no longer be water coming out of taps. The internet could stop working where routers require power from the grid.
Furthermore, the heat could cause asphalt and tarmac to melt and rail tracks to buckle, while airports could be closed, not only because the surface of the runway could get too hot, but also because the air could become too thin for planes to take off due to the heat.
In short, traffic, transport and industrial activities such as smelting, which are emitting a lot of sulfates as well at the moment, could grind to a halt at many places on the Northern Hemisphere. The result would be a large reduction in aerosols that are currently masking the full wrath of global warming (mainly sulfates).
How much difference could it make? The IPCC in AR6 estimates the aerosol ERF to be −1.3 W m⁻², adding that there has been an increase in the estimated magnitude of the total aerosol ERF relative to AR5. In AR6, the IPCC estimate for liquid water path (LWP, i.e., the vertically integrated cloud water) adjustment is 0.2 W m⁻², but a recent analysis found a forcing from LWP adjustment of −0.76 W m⁻², which would mean that the IPCC estimate of −1.3 W m⁻² should be changed to -2.26 W m⁻². When using a sensitivity of ¾°C per W m⁻², this translates into an impact of -1.695°C. Since the IPCC's total for aerosols includes a net positive impact for warming aerosols such as black carbon, the impact of cooling aerosols only (without warming aerosols) will be even more negative.
This supports the 2016 analysis that warned that by 2026 there could be a 1.9°C temperature rise due to a decrease in cooling aerosols, while there could be an additional 0.6°C temperature rise due to an increase in warming aerosols and gases as a result of more biomass and waste burning and forest fires by 2026.
So, together with the upcoming El Niño and a peak in sunspots, that could result in a total rise by 2026 of 5.44°C above pre-industrial. There's more to come! Additionally, the 2016 analysis warned about further rises in temperature due to loss of Arctic sea ice and permafrost, and associated changes, as well as further rises due to gases, concluding that there could be a temperature rise by 2026 of more than 10°C compared to pre-industrial.
With a temperature rise of more than 10°C by 2026, the clouds tipping point will also be crossed, which would result in a total rise of more than 18°C by 2026. Keep in mind that humans are likely to go extinct with a rise of 3°C, as illustrated by the image below, from an analysis discussed in an earlier post.
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.
Links
• WMO - More bad news for the planet: greenhouse gas levels hit new highs
