The IPCC appears to be strongly downplaying the amount of global warming that has already occurred and that looks set to eventuate over the next decade or so, according to a leaked draft of the IPCC 'Special Report on 1.5°C above pre-industrial'. The 'First Order Draft of the Summary for Policy Makers' estimates that the global mean temperature reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017/2018.
Let's go over the numbers step by step, by following the image below line by line (click on the image to enlarge it).
NASA's data for the two most recent years for which data are available (2016/2017) show a warming of 0.95°C when using a baseline of 1951-1980 and a warming of 1.23°C when using a baseline of 1890-1910 (left map on image below). In other words, using this earlier baseline results in an additional 0.28°C rise. When using an even earlier baseline, i.e. 1750 or preindustrial, it could be 1.53°C warmer, as discussed in an earlier post.
In other words, merely changing the baseline to preindustrial, as agreed to at the Paris Agreement, can show that we're already above the 1.5°C guardrail that the Paris Agreement had pledged we should not cross.
There's more! As a recent publication points out, most methods that calculate the global temperature use sea surface temperatures. However, doesn't it make more sense to calculate the temperature of the air just above the sea surface? Measuring air temperature at the surface is done in the case of temperatures over land, where one doesn't measure the temperature of the soil or rocks when telling people how warm it is. Since air surface temperatures are slightly higher than sea surface temperatures, the result of looking at air surface temperatures across the globe would be a temperature that is approximately 0.1°C warmer. Furthermore, many areas in the Arctic may not have been adequately reflected in the global temperature, e.g. because insufficient data were available. Since the Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest of the world, inclusion of those areas would add another 0.1°C to the rise. Adding this to the above 1.53°C rise makes that it's already 1.73°C (or 3.11°F) warmer than preindustrial.
Another question is over what period measurements should be taken when assessing whether thresholds have been crossed. When focusing on temperatures during specific months, the rise could be much higher than the annual average. So, does it make more sense to look at a monthly peak rather than at a long-term average?
When building a bridge and when calculating what load the bridge should be able to handle, it makes sense to look at peak traffic and at times when a lot of heavy trucks happen to be on the bridge. That makes a lot more sense than only looking at the average weight of cars driving over the bridge during a period of - say - one, two or thirty years.
Accordingly, the right panel of the top image shows numbers for February 2016 when temperature anomalies were particularly high. When looking at this monthly anomaly, we are already 2.37°C (or 4.27°F) above preindustrial, i.e. well above the 2°C guardrail that the Paris Agreement had pledged we should definitely not cross.
Should the temperature rise be calculated using a longer period? The IPCC appears to have arrived at its temperature rise estimate by using an extrapolation or near term predictions of future warming so that the level of anthropogenic warming is reported for a 30 year period centered on today.
The image below, from an earlier post, shows global warming for a 30-year period centered on January 2018, using NASA 2003 to January 2018 LOTI anomalies from 1951-1980, adjusted by 0.59°C to cater for the rise from preindustrial to 1951-1980, and with a polynomial trend added.
If above trendline is adjusted by a further 0.2°C, by shifting to air temperatures instead of sea surface temperatures, and by better reflecting Arctic temperatures, then the trendline looks set to cross the 2°C guardrail in 2018. So, will Earth cross 2°C in 2018?
Above images illustrate the importance of what's going to happen next. The temperature rise up until now may well be dwarfed by what's yet to come and the outlook may well be even worse than what most fear will eventuate. The image below, from an earlier post, shows a steep rise from 2016 to 2026, due to the combined impact of the warming elements listed in the left box of the image below.
Meanwhile, the rise in carbon dioxide levels appears to be accelerating, as illustrated by the images below.
Indeed, despite pledges made at the Paris Agreement to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial, the rise in CO₂ since preindustrial, i.e. 1750, still appears to be accelerating.
On March 18, 2018, the sea surface temperature near Svalbard (at the green circle) was 16.7°C or 62.1°F, i.e. 14.7°C or 26.4°F warmer than the daily average during the years 1981-2011.
On March 30, 2018, methane levels as high as 2624 parts per billion were recorded.
On April 1, 2018, methane levels as high as 2744 parts per billion were recorded.
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html
• IPCC seeks to downplay global warming
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/02/ipcc-seeks-to-downplay-global-warming.html
• 2016 well above 1.5°C
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-well-above-1.5c.html
• Interpretations of the Paris climate target, by Andrew Schurer et al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0086-8
Monday, April 2, 2018
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Warning Signs
The Arctic is warming up more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, due to numerous feedbacks. At times, large areas over the Arctic Ocean can become 30°C or 54°F warmer than 1979-2000, as illustrated by the image below.
On February 27, 2018, large parts of the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland had turned into open water, as illustrated by the image below.
Yet, while the situation in the Arctic is desperate, with sea ice north of Greenland collapsing and more, mainstream media do not seem to care. If there ever were warning signs of what could eventuate, this is one. The sea ice north of Greenland is typically the thickest, as it is the least affected by melting and can build over many years. Early February 2018, sea ice north of Greenland was up to 5 m thick. To see sea ice this thick getting pushed away and open water emerging north of Greenland in the middle of winter is simply stunning.
For years, I've been warning about the situation in the Arctic, in particular the 'Open Doors Feedback', which is accelerating Arctic warming. Such feedbacks were taken into consideration in an earlier analysis that warned about a potential 1.6°C warming globally due to albedo changes in the Arctic, in combination with associated changes such as loss of the ice buffer (latent heat), more heat transfer from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arctic Ocean due to stronger winds along the path of the Gulf Stream, and more heat entering the atmosphere or remaining in the atmosphere, due to more open water in the Arctic Ocean and as oceans get more stratified and take up less heat from the atmosphere.
So, the current situation doesn't come as a big surprise, but it's stunning to see sea ice collapse north of Greenland.
Back in March 7, 2007, I posted the article 'Ten Dangers of Global Warming', describing events getting progressively worse, with one danger feeding and reinforcing the next one, culminating in panic. Then, I thought that reading that post could at least help people better understand what's going on, and thus help people avoid panicking, but right now, I wonder whether most people do want to understand at all. Anyway, here are some images and words describing what happened over the past few days.
Jet Stream over Arctic Ocean on February 25, 2018 |
As Arctic warming keeps accelerating, there's ever less temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator, and this slows down the speed at which the jet stream circumnavigates Earth.
Jet Stream over Arctic Ocean on February 26, 2018 |
During the northern winter, the Arctic is increasingly getting warmer than North America, Europe and Siberia. This increases the temperature difference between these continents and the oceans, which at times is causing winds to strongly speed up over the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, making an already wavy jet stream extend even further over the Arctic Ocean, reaching areas well beyond the North Pole.
Atmospheric river of heat reaches the North Pole; temperatures were as high as 1.1°C or 34.1°F on February 25, 2018 |
Temperatures above 6°C at Kap Morris Jesup, Greenland's northernmost weather station, on February 25, 2018 |
These events were preceded by the Polar Vortex splitting up. On February 9, 2018, the Polar Vortex was split up into 4 vortices and reached speeds as fast as 425 km/h or 264 mph.
Polar Vortex split up into 4 vortices |
Polar Vortex splitting up into 4 vortices with a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event occurring on February 16, 2018 |
Below is an animation of sea ice thickness, from the Naval Research Laboratory.
Arctic sea ice extent was at record low for the time of the year on February 26, 2018, at 14.159 million km². Arctic sea ice extent typically reaches its maximum in March, but maximum extent in 1991-2000 was reached on February 24. So, there is a chance that Arctic sea ice extent will go all downhill from now on this year.
Zero sea ice volume is within the margins of the trend depicted on the image above on the right. Decline of the snow and ice cover in the Arctic comes with a huge loss in albedo, which means that huge amounts of sunlight that were previously reflected back into space instead get absorbed by the Arctic. Loss of sea ice also means loss of the buffer that until now has consumed huge amounts of heat.
The Buffer has gone, feedback #14 on the Feedbacks page |
Peak SST near Svalbard rose from 12.4°C or 55.4°F on Feb 23, 2018, to 15.6°C or 60°F on Mar 2, 2018. |
Destabilization of hydrates can occur in a relatively small area as a result of a relatively small temperature rise. Destabilization comes with a 160 times expansion in volume of the methane, which will send out shock waves that can destabilize nearby hydrates, causing them to destabilize as well, resulting in an eruption of huge quantities of methane over a large area.
Here's another warning sign. Peak sea surface temperature near Svalbard rose from 12.4°C or 55.4°F on February 23, 2018, to 15.6°C or 60°F on March 2, 2018, as illustrated by the red line on the image on the right, with the blue line showing the 1981-2011 average.
And here's another warning sign. High methane releases followed this chain of events on February 27, 2018, pm, likely originating from the seafloor of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS).
Methane levels as high as 2892 ppb on February 27, 2018 |
The image below, with measurement by another satellite, shows that methane levels were again very high over the ESAS the next day, i.e. March 2, 2018, confirming earlier indications that this is where the very high methane releases did occur.
As the image below shows, methane levels on March 4, 2018, were still very high, i.e. as high as 2964 ppb.
The image below shows the highest mean global methane readings on March 10 over the years from 2013 through 2018, for selected altitudes corresponding to 945 mb (close to sea level) to 74 mb.
[ click on images to enlarge ] |
The table below shows the altitude equivalents in feet (ft), meter (m) and millibar (mb).
57,016 ft | 44,690 ft | 36,850 ft | 30,570 ft | 25,544 ft | 19,820 ft | 14,385 ft | 8,368 ft | 1,916 ft |
17,378 m | 13,621 m | 11,232 m | 9,318 m | 7,786 m | 6,041 m | 4,384 m | 2,551 m | 584 m |
74 mb | 147 mb | 218 mb | 293 mb | 367 mb | 469 mb | 586 mb | 742 mb | 945 mb |
An earlier analysis calculated that seafloor methane could cause a warming of 1.1°C within one decade. Given a possible additional warming of 2.7°C due to just two elements (i.e. Arctic albedo changes and associated changes, and seafloor methane), a further warming of 2.1°C due to extra water vapor in the warmer atmosphere does seem well possible within a decade. Add up the impact of all warming elements of this analysis and the rise in mean global temperatures from preindustrial could be more than 10°C within one decade, as illustrated by the images below.
A rise of a few degrees Celsius would be devastating, especially when considering that the speed at which such a rise could occur leaves little or no time for plants and animals to adapt, let alone in case of a 10°C rise.
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Feedbacks in the Arctic
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html
• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
• Ten Dangers of Global Warming
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/ten-dangers-of-global-warming.html
• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloor
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html
• Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
IPCC seeks to downplay global warming
The graph below shows global warming for a 30-year period centered on January 2018, using NASA 2003 to January 2018 LOTI anomalies from 1951-1980, adjusted by 0.59°C to cater for the rise from preindustrial to 1951-1980, and with a polynomial trend added.
Above graph shows that the 1.5°C guardrail, set at the Paris Agreement, was crossed in 2016 and that a 10°C (18°F) warming could eventuate within a decade or so.
The variations in above temperature data are strongly influenced by El Niño/La Niña. We currently are in a La Niña period, during which surface temperatures are suppressed, whereas surface temperatures in 2016 were much above the trendline, due to El Niño.
The ECMWF forecast from 1 February 2018 on the right indicates that we're heading for another El Niño, i.e. surface temperatures will be rising strongly over the coming months.
The IPCC seeks to downplay the amount of global warming that has already occurred and that looks set to eventuate over the next decade or so. A leaked draft of the IPCC 'Special Report on 1.5°C above pre-industrial' (First Order Draft of SR1.5 SPM) estimates that the global mean temperature reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017/2018. The IPCC appears to have arrived at this estimate using an extrapolation or near term predictions of future warming so that the level of anthropogenic warming is reported for a 30 year period centered on today.
This 1°C IPCC estimate looks quite incredible when calculating the temperature rise using NASA's data for the two most recent years for which data are available (2016/2017), which shows a warming of 0.95°C when using a baseline of 1951-1980 and a warming of 1.23°C when using a baseline of 1890-1910.
Indeed, the temperature rise differs depending on which baseline is used, and when using preindustrial as a baseline, i.e. the baseline agreed to at the Paris Agreement, indications are that temperatures have already risen by more than 1.5°C, as also discussed in an earlier post.
Furthermore, when using a 30-year period centered on January 2018, the current temperature will have to be calculated over the past 15 years and estimated for the next 15 years, i.e. up to the year 2033.
To arrive at a 1°C rise for the 30-year period, the IPCC must somehow assume that temperatures will magically fall dramatically over the next 15 years, whereas indications are that temperatures will instead rise dramatically over the next decade or so.
The image on the right shows that 10°C (18°F) warming from preindustrial could eventuate within one decade when taking into full account the warming that could result from the elements depicted in the stacked bar. Each of these warming elements is discussed in more detail at the extinction page.
The image below shows the rise from 1750 to 2030, in surface temperatures (land+ocean), rather than in anomalies.
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html
From: ECMWF Nino Plumes |
The variations in above temperature data are strongly influenced by El Niño/La Niña. We currently are in a La Niña period, during which surface temperatures are suppressed, whereas surface temperatures in 2016 were much above the trendline, due to El Niño.
The ECMWF forecast from 1 February 2018 on the right indicates that we're heading for another El Niño, i.e. surface temperatures will be rising strongly over the coming months.
The IPCC seeks to downplay the amount of global warming that has already occurred and that looks set to eventuate over the next decade or so. A leaked draft of the IPCC 'Special Report on 1.5°C above pre-industrial' (First Order Draft of SR1.5 SPM) estimates that the global mean temperature reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017/2018. The IPCC appears to have arrived at this estimate using an extrapolation or near term predictions of future warming so that the level of anthropogenic warming is reported for a 30 year period centered on today.
This 1°C IPCC estimate looks quite incredible when calculating the temperature rise using NASA's data for the two most recent years for which data are available (2016/2017), which shows a warming of 0.95°C when using a baseline of 1951-1980 and a warming of 1.23°C when using a baseline of 1890-1910.
Indeed, the temperature rise differs depending on which baseline is used, and when using preindustrial as a baseline, i.e. the baseline agreed to at the Paris Agreement, indications are that temperatures have already risen by more than 1.5°C, as also discussed in an earlier post.
Furthermore, when using a 30-year period centered on January 2018, the current temperature will have to be calculated over the past 15 years and estimated for the next 15 years, i.e. up to the year 2033.
To arrive at a 1°C rise for the 30-year period, the IPCC must somehow assume that temperatures will magically fall dramatically over the next 15 years, whereas indications are that temperatures will instead rise dramatically over the next decade or so.
The image on the right shows that 10°C (18°F) warming from preindustrial could eventuate within one decade when taking into full account the warming that could result from the elements depicted in the stacked bar. Each of these warming elements is discussed in more detail at the extinction page.
The image below shows the rise from 1750 to 2030, in surface temperatures (land+ocean), rather than in anomalies.
The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html
• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html
Labels:
10 degrees,
baseline,
change,
climate,
downplay,
global,
IPCC,
rise,
temperature,
warming
Friday, February 16, 2018
100% clean, renewable energy is cheaper
A new analysis by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson and colleagues shows that the world can be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy, with today's technology.
The analysis looks at different pathways, using different ways of energy generation (by wind, water and sunlight), in combination with storage, transmission, and demand response, concluding that the world can also be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy at a lower cost than a BAU (Business-As-Usual) scenario dominated by fossil fuel.
“Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean, renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost,” says Mark Jacobson.
Moreover, the price of fuel currently excludes the cost of health and climate damage caused by fuel. When including these costs, the cost of clean, renewable energy is ¼ the cost of BAU. Since clean, renewable energy uses 43%-58% fewer kWh, it is ⅛ the cost of fuel.
The price of fuel looks set to go up over time due to decreasing economies of scale for fuel and due to the cost of conflict associated with fuel. As an example, a 2017 report puts the cost of U.S. military intervention in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the period FY2001-FY2018 at $5.6 trillion, or $23,386 for the average taxpayer. The report adds that, unlike past US wars, these wars have been paid for largely through borrowing. The $5.6 trillion includes the interest the US has already paid on this debt, but it does not include projected future interest. Even if the US stopped spending money on these wars right now, cumulated interest costs on borrowing will ultimately add more than $7.9 trillion to the national debt over the next several decades.
Meanwhile, the price of clean, renewable energy looks set to keep coming down, in line with ongoing innovation, efficiency improvements and economies of scale. Examples are induction cooking, batteries, heat pumps, LED lights, refrigeration and smelters.
Local feebates can most effectively and rapidly achieve the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy. One example is to impose fees on sales of fuel, with the revenues used to fund rebates on local supply of clean, renewable energy. Another example is to impose fees on registration of vehicles with internal combustion engines, with the revenues used to fund rebates on registration of battery-electric vehicles. Local feebates can best help areas each get their preferred mix (of local supply/storage, of grid interconnection and imports/exports of electricity, and of demand response).
The Climate Plan calls for dramatic cuts in emissions through such policies, while also calling for further lines of action. For more on the benefits of feebates, see the feebates and policies pages.
100% clean & renewable energy is technically feasible and more attractive economically, more healthy, and will provide more jobs and more robust, stable and lower-cost energy with greater energy independence and security and with less need for land, water and imports. Moreover, it will dramatically reduce harmful pollution and emissions, which is absolutely imperative in the light of the urgent need to act on global warming.
Feel encouraged to discuss things further at the following groups at facebook:
facebook.com/groups/Renewables
facebook.com/groups/ElectricTransport
facebook.com/groups/biochar
facebook.com/groups/ClimateAlert
facebook.com/groups/ArcticNews
facebook.com/groups/geoengineering
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes, by Mark Z. Jacobson et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526
• Stanford engineers develop a new method of keeping the lights on if the world turns to 100% clean, renewable energy
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy
• Costs of War project, Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
• Rapid Transition to a Clean World
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/11/rapid-transition-to-a-clean-world.html
• Roadmap for Repowering California for all Purposes with Wind, Water, and Sunlight
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/06/roadmap-for-repowering-california-for-all-purposes-with-wind-water-and-sunlight.html
• Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html
• Policies
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/policies.html
• Professor Mark Z. Jacobson speaks at Cupertino Rotary, California, May 9, 2018
https://vimeo.com/269302931
The analysis looks at different pathways, using different ways of energy generation (by wind, water and sunlight), in combination with storage, transmission, and demand response, concluding that the world can also be powered by 100% clean, renewable energy at a lower cost than a BAU (Business-As-Usual) scenario dominated by fossil fuel.
“Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean, renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost,” says Mark Jacobson.
[ image added May 2018, see video ] |
[ brightened image, added May 2018, see video ] |
Meanwhile, the price of clean, renewable energy looks set to keep coming down, in line with ongoing innovation, efficiency improvements and economies of scale. Examples are induction cooking, batteries, heat pumps, LED lights, refrigeration and smelters.
Local feebates can most effectively and rapidly achieve the necessary transition to clean, renewable energy. One example is to impose fees on sales of fuel, with the revenues used to fund rebates on local supply of clean, renewable energy. Another example is to impose fees on registration of vehicles with internal combustion engines, with the revenues used to fund rebates on registration of battery-electric vehicles. Local feebates can best help areas each get their preferred mix (of local supply/storage, of grid interconnection and imports/exports of electricity, and of demand response).
The Climate Plan calls for dramatic cuts in emissions through such policies, while also calling for further lines of action. For more on the benefits of feebates, see the feebates and policies pages.
[ image from Renewables ] |
Feel encouraged to discuss things further at the following groups at facebook:
facebook.com/groups/Renewables
facebook.com/groups/ElectricTransport
facebook.com/groups/biochar
facebook.com/groups/ClimateAlert
facebook.com/groups/ArcticNews
facebook.com/groups/geoengineering
Links
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes, by Mark Z. Jacobson et al.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526
• Stanford engineers develop a new method of keeping the lights on if the world turns to 100% clean, renewable energy
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy
• Costs of War project, Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
• Rapid Transition to a Clean World
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/11/rapid-transition-to-a-clean-world.html
• Roadmap for Repowering California for all Purposes with Wind, Water, and Sunlight
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/06/roadmap-for-repowering-california-for-all-purposes-with-wind-water-and-sunlight.html
• Feebates
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html
• Policies
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/policies.html
• Professor Mark Z. Jacobson speaks at Cupertino Rotary, California, May 9, 2018
https://vimeo.com/269302931
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)