Arctic Sea Ice Steep Decline Continues

Steep decline of the Arctic sea ice continues. The yellow line on the image below follows 2014 sea ice area up to June 5 and shows that sea ice area now is close to a record low for the time of the year.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The Naval Research Laboratory image below compares sea ice concentration on May 14, 2014 (left) with the sea ice concentration forecast for June 15, 2014 (run on June 7, 2014, on the right).

Above image shows falling sea ice concentration, with low sea ice concentration extending to the center of the Arctic Ocean.

Low sea ice concentration at the center of the Arctic Ocean is an ominous sign; at last year's minimum, very little sea ice was left close to the North Pole, as discussed in an earlier post.

On the right is an image of the University of Bremen showing sea ice concentration on June 8, 2014 (click on the images to enlarge them).

Arctic sea ice already is very thin, as discussed in recent posts. The image below shows that the sea ice volume trend down to zero was confirmed for the months April and May 2014.

[ image by Andy Lee Robinson based on PIOMAS data, click on image to enlarge ]

The lowest sea ice volume for 2014 is expected to be reached in September, and - given the shape the ice is in now - will likely be one of the lowest minima on record. In fact, there is a chance that there will be no ice left whatsoever later this year. As illustrated by the image by Wipneus below, an exponential curve based on annual minima from 1979 points at zero ice volume end 2016, with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval pointing at zero ice end of 2014.

As the sea ice disappears, a lot more heat will be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice reflects 50% to 70% of the incoming energy, describes NSIDC.org, but thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90% of the incoming solar radiation. Melting of snow creates melt ponds on the ice and because shallow melt ponds have an albedo of approximately 0.2 to 0.4, the surface albedo drops to about 0.75. As melt ponds grow and deepen, the surface albedo can drop to 0.15. The ocean reflects only 6% of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest. Snow and ice decline comes with a further feedback in that all the energy that during the melt went into transforming ice into water will - in the absence of ice - now be absorbed by the ocean as well.

Accelerated Warming in the Arctic

[ from the post Near-Term Human Extinction ]

Such feedbacks are causing warming to accelerate in the Arctic Ocean, as depicted in above image and described in the earlier post Feedbacks in the Arctic. Much of the Arctic Ocean is very shallow and the seafloor is thus vulnerable to warming. The Gulf Stream can be expected to keep carrying warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, so the situation is dire, while extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cyclones can make the situation even worse.

The NOAA image below shows huge sea surface temperature anomalies all over the Northern Hemisphere on June 8, 2014.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

Large areas with sea surface temperature anomalies up to 8°C and higher show up in and around the Arctic Ocean, as further illustrated by the image below.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The image below shows high sea surface temperature anomalies from February 21, 2014, up to June 9, 2014, on the Northern Hemisphere (red bars), next to global average anomalies (orange/shaded bars).

The global sea surface temperature anomaly is worrying (a 1.25°C anomaly was reached on May 22, 2014). See the NOAA website to compare this with earlier months. Note that on specific spots the anomaly is much higher, as illustrated by the images further above.

Warm surface waters in the Arctic sea ice spell bad news, given that the sea ice is already at or close to record lows, in terms of area and volume.

And as ocean heat threatens to melt the sea ice from beneath, the sun is now strongly warming up the ice from above. Insolation in the Arctic is at its highest at this time of year, as Earth reaches its maximum axial tilt toward the sun of 23° 26'. In fact, insolation during the months June and July is higher in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, as discussed at this earlier post.

The diminishing temperature difference between the equator and the North Pole reduces the speed at which the Jet Stream circumnavigates Earth and it makes the Jet Stream become wavier, increasing opportunities for cold air to escape from the Arctic and for warm air to move in. More extreme weather increases the chance of intense and prolonged heatwaves and fierce cyclones, storms and winds to hit the Arctic Ocean.

Making things even worsen, there is the prospect of an El Niño event, projected to occur later this year. According to NOAA (June 5, 2014), the chance of El Niño is 70% during the Northern Hemisphere summer and reaches 80% during the fall and winter. El Niño odds are even higher than this, according to this post at the Wunderground blog.


Methane

Temperature rises of the water close to the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean are very dangerous, as heat can penetrate sediments and cause hydrate destabilization. Huge amounts of methane are held in sediments at the seafloor, in the form of free gas and hydrates. In shallow waters, methane released from the seafloor can more easily enter the atmosphere without getting broken down by microbes in the water.

Methane levels are already very high. On June 6, 2014, mean global methane reached levels as high as 1809 ppb, with peaks as high as 2516 ppb.

Methane release from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean will warm up the Arctic even further, triggering even more methane releases, heatwaves, wildfires and further feedbacks, in a spiral of runaway warming, threatening to cause starvation, destruction and extintion at massive scale across the globe.


Earthquakes

Earthquakes are a further worry. A huge amount of melting takes place in Greenland, as described in the post Ten Cubic Kilometers of Ice Lost From Jakobshavn Glacier in Less than One Month. As the ice disappears, a large weight is lefted from Greenland, causing the Earth's crust there to be lifted in a phenomenon referred to as isostatic rebound. This can cause earthquakes to occur on the seafloor of the waters around Greenland, as illustrated by the image below.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

As the image below shows, the faultline alongside Greenland crosses the Arctic Ocean and extends into the Laptev Sea and Siberia, an area recently hit by two large earthquakes.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

Earthquakes in this region are very worrying. Earthquakes can trigger further earthquakes, especially at locations closeby on the same faultline. Earthquakes and subsequent shockwaves and landslides can further contribute to destabilization of methane hydrates contained in sediments under the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

In conclusion, the situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as discussed at the climate plan blog.


Related

- M4.4 Earthquake hits Arctic Ocean north of Greenland
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/04/m45-earthquake-hits-arctic-ocean.html

- M4.5 Earthquake hits Arctic Ocean
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/04/m45-earthquake-hits-arctic-ocean.html

- Earthquakes in the Arctic Ocean
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/04/earthquakes-in-the-arctic-ocean.html

- Methane, Faults and Sea Ice
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/11/methane-faults-and-sea-ice.html

- Norwegian Sea hit by 4.6M Earthquake
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/11/norwegian-sea-hit-by-46m-earthquake.html

- Greenland Sea hit by M5.3 Earthquake
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/10/greenland-sea-hit-by-m53-earthquake.html

- Earthquake hits waters off Japan
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/10/earthquake-hits-waters-off-japan.html

- Earthquake hits Laptev Sea
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/09/earthquake-hits-laptev-sea.html

- Methane Release caused by Earthquakes
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/09/methane-release-caused-by-earthquakes.html

- Earthquake M6.7 hits Sea of Okhotsk
http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/10/earthquake-m67-hits-sea-of-okhotsk.html

- Sea of Okhotsk
http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/06/sea-of-okhotsk.html

- Seismic activity
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/seismic-activity.html

- Climate Plan
http://climateplan.blogspot.com

One Million Views

Arctic-news blog has now received more than 1 Million views.

Thanks, contributors and all who read, shared, liked, commented and otherwise helped spread the word.

We feel strongly inspired, encouraged and obliged to keep on reporting on the dire situation in the Arctic.

Thank you!

Post by Sam Carana.

Arctic sea ice in steep decline

Arctic sea ice area is in steep decline. The yellow line on the image below shows the sea ice area for 2014 up to June 1st, showing an almost vertical fall over the past few days.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The Naval Research Laboratory image below compares the May 14, 2014, sea ice concentration (left) with the sea ice concentration forecast for June 10, 2014 (run on June 2, 2014, on the right).

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The NOAA image below shows sea surface temperature anomalies on June 3rd, 2014.

The NOAA image shows the huge sea surface temperature anomalies all over the Northern Hemisphere on June 3rd, 2014. Large areas with sea surface temperature anomalies up to 8 degrees Celsius and higher show up in and around the Arctic Ocean

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The image below shows sea surface temperature anomalies up to 1.5 degrees Celsius over the May-June 2014 period, with global average anomalies that hover just above 1 degree Celsius.

Above sea surface anomalies are very high, much higher than historic annual temperature anomalies over land and oceans, as shown on the image below for comparison.

In conclusion, the situation spells bad news for the sea ice, also given the prospect of an El Niño event projected to occur later this year. As discussed in earlier posts, the sea ice is already very thin, and as this image shows, ocean heat is melting the sea ice from beneath, while the sun is warming up the ice from above. At this time of year, insolation in the Arctic is at its highest, as Earth reaches its maximum axial tilt toward the sun of 23° 26'. In fact, insolation during the months June and July is higher in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, as discussed at this earlier post.

Feedbacks further accelerate warming in the Arctic, as described in the earlier post Feedbacks in the Arctic. Temperature rises of the water close to the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean is very dangerous, as heat penetrating sediments there could cause hydrate destabilization, resulting in huge amounts of methane entering the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean.

Obama's Power Plant Rules: Too Little, Too Late, Too Ineffective

On June 2, 2014, the Obama administration through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that states must lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted for each unit (MWh) of electricity they produce.

1. Too Little

Under the EPA rules, the nationwide goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector by 30% from 2005 levels. This will also reduce other pollutants.

Sam Carana: The goal should be an 80% cut in emissions. Reductions should not be averaged out over different types of emissions, but instead the 80% reduction target should apply to each type of emission, i.e. 80% cuts in CO2 and 80% cuts in CH4 and 80% cuts in black carbon, etc.

2. Too late

Under the EPA rules, states must meet interim targets during the 2020s, but they can delay making emission cuts provided they will on average comply with targets by 2030. Moreover, the EPA suggests that they can from then on maintain that level subsequently.

Sam Carana: For over six years, I have been calling for an 80% cut in emissions by 2020. When people now ask if I still believe such reductions are feasible given the lack of action over the years, I respond that, precisely because so little has been achieved over the years, it now is even more imperative to set a target of 80% emissions cuts by 2020. If we start cutting 13.4% off this year's emissions, and keep cutting emissions by the same amount each subsequent year, we'll be under 20% (i.e. at 19.6%) by 2020. 

3. Too ineffective

Under the EPA rules, states could comply by either reducing CO2 emissions from their power plants or buying credits or offsets from elsewehere, e.g. through cap-and-trade programs. States can choose to use existing multi-state programs or create new ones.

Sam Carana: The goal should be a genuine 80% cut in emissions in each and every state. It is good to delegate decisions to states regarding what works best locally to achieve such reductions. However, schemes such as cap-and-trade, carbon credits and offsetting keep local polluters dirty by allowing them to claim credit for progress made elsewhere. A state buying credits from beyond its borders does not genuinely reduce its own emissions, making it even harder for it to reach its next targets (which should be even tighter), while also making it harder for targets to be reached elsewhere.  

The bigger such schemes grow, the more they become fraught with difficulties, twisted with irregularities and riddled with political chicanery, making them prone to fraud and bribery, often beyond the administrative scope and legal reach of local regulators. 

Such schemes are inherently counter-productive in that they seek to create ever more demand for polluting activities; they will continue doing dirty business until the last possible 'credit' has been sold, burning the last bit of fossil fuel from irrealistic carbon budgets that are fabricated inside the dark politics of compromise, campaign-funding and complacency. 

Such schemes are designed to profit from keeping the dirtiest power plants going and prolonging their lifetime beyond any reasonable purpose, in efforts to perpetuate the scheme itself and extract further money that, instead of being used to benefit the cleaner solutions, is then often used to finance further pollution elsewhere and spread the reach of such schemes. Such dreadful conduct is typically hidden away in a web of deceit custom-made to avoid the scrutiny of public accountibility.

And what if states fail to reach targets? The EPA suggestion to use such schemes effectively delays much local action, while encouraging states to negotiate with each other. This opens up the prospect of states blaming each other and taking legal action rather than genuine action. If the trappings of such schemes make states fail to reach targets, penalties could be imposed, but that still does not guarantee that targets will be reached; furthermore, given the complexities of such schemes, policing them poses additional burdens on administrators, police, courts and lawyers. Huge amounts of money and time have already been spent on court cases to postpone action, rather than on building genuine solutions.  

The best way to cater for non-compliance is to prepare federally-administered fees, to be levied on sales of polluting products, and with the revenues used to fund federal projects that do reduce emissions. As said, it's good for the EPA to encourage states to each work out how best to reduce their respective emissions, provided that each state does indeed reach set targets. Where a state fails to take the necessary action, the EPA should resume control and call for federal fees to be imposed in the respective state. 

The Clean Air Act calls for the 'best system of emissions reduction' to reduce emissions from power plants. The best system is one that levies fees on pollution and then uses the revenues to fund rebates on the cleaner products sold locally.  

Such combinations of fees and rebates (feebates) are the most effective way to make our economy sustainable, as part of the comprehensive action that is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. For more details on comprehensive and effective action, see the ClimatePlan blog. 

Related

- Methane Man
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/01/methane-man.html

- Climate Plan
http://climateplan.blogspot.com

Support methanetracker.org

by Harold Hensel

I keep thinking of this experience when I see that methane has now blanketed the entire globe with the highest concentrations in the northern hemisphere. I was signing up a young man for property insurance. We discussed coverage's and how much coverage he needed. We got almost to the end of the routine underwriting questions and I got to the one about if he had ever been convicted of arson. He said yes! Then he said, do you think that will make a difference? Do we think that the globe being blanketed with methane will make a difference?

Methanetracker.org is an important service and it is brought to you by one person, Omar Cabrera from Houston. There is nothing else like it on the internet. He has spent $30,000 of his own money to make methanetracker.org free to the public. He feels this strongly about the methane issue. If you notice the slider bar, it stops at 4/20/2014. He needs to upgrade and has run out of money to do it. He has not asked for money until he ran out of money. Methanetracker.org is very important and he should not be trying to go it alone. I think we should chip in to help him keep methane tracker going. He doesn't need that much. How to help is on the http://www.methanetracker.org/ web site.

How many deaths could result from failure to act on climate change?

A recent OECD analysis concludes that outdoor air pollution is killing more than 3.5 million people a year globally. The OECD estimates that people in its 34 Member countries would be willing to pay USD 1.7 trillion to avoid deaths caused by air pollution. Road transport is likely responsible for about half.

[ from an earlier post ]

A 2012 report by DARA calculated that 5 million people were dying each year from climate change and carbon economies, mostly from indoor smoke and (outdoor) air pollution.

Back in 2012, a Reuters report calculated that this could add up to a total number of 100 million deaths over the coming two decades. This suggests, however, that failure to act on climate change will not cause even more deaths due to other causes.

Indeed, failure to act on climate change could result in many more deaths due to other causes, in particular food shortages. As temperatures rise, ever more extreme weather events can be expected, such as flooding, heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and subsequent crop loss, famine, disease, heat-stroke, etc.

So, while currently most deaths are caused by indoor smoke and outdoor air pollution, in case of a failure to act on climate change the number of deaths can be expected to rise most rapidly among people hit by heat stress, famine, fresh water shortages, as well as wars over who controls access to land, food, fresh water, etc.

How high could figures rise? Below is an update of an image from the earlier post Arctic Methane Impact with a scale in both Celsius and Fahrenheit added on the right, illustrating the danger that temperature will rise to intolerable levels if little or no action is taken on climate change. The inset shows projected global number of annual climate-related deaths for these two scenarios, i.e. little or no action, and also shows a third scenario of comprehensive and effective action that instead seeks to bring temperature rise under control.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

For further details on comprehensive and effective climate action, see the ClimatePlan.


Links

• The Cost of Air Pollution | OECD analysis, published May 2014
http://www.oecd.org/environment/cost-of-air-pollution.htm

• DARA Climate Vulnerability Monitor
http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/

• 100 mln will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate - report | REUTERS
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/climate-inaction-idINDEE88O0HH20120925

• Arctic Methane Impact
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/11/arctic-methane-impact.html

• Is death by lead worse than death by climate? No. | by Paul Beckwith
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-death-by-lead-worse-than-death-by-climate-no.html

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

Large Falls in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness over May 2014

Comparing ice thickness (in meters) on May 2, 2014 (left) and May 30, 2014 (right, forecast run May 25, 2014)

Arctic sea ice has shown large falls in thickness in many areas over the course of May 2014, as shown on above image. The animation below also compares the situation between May 2, 2014, and May 30, 2014 (as forecast by Naval Research Laboratory on May 23, 2014). Ice thickness is in meters.

Thickness is an important indicator of the vulnerability of the ice. If only looking at sea ice extent, one might (wrongly) conclude that sea ice retreat was only minor and that everything looked fine. By contrast, when looking at thickness, it becomes evident that large falls have occurred over the course of May 2014.

Falls at the edges of the sea ice can be expected at this time of the year, but the large fall closer to the center is frightening. On the one hand, it appears to reflect cyclonic weather and subsequent drift of the ice. On the other hand, it also indicates how vulnerable the sea ice has become. Last year, a large area showed up at the center of the sea ice where the ice became very thin, as discussed in July 2013 in the post Open Water at North Pole and again in the September 2013 post North Hole.

The appearance of huge weak areas at the center of the sea ice adds to its vulnerability and increases the prospect of total sea ice collapse, in case of one or more large cyclones hitting the Arctic Ocean later this year. To highlight the dangerous situation, the main image from a post earlier this month is again added below.

Adding to the concerns are huge sea surface temperature anomalies, as illustrated by the image below, showing anomalies at May 23, 2014, and created by Harold Hensel with ClimateReanalyzer and Google Earth.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The image below shows sea surface anomalies on May 26, 2014, with an overlay of land temperatures, as created by Harold Hensel and edited by Sam Carana.

The image shows sea surface temperatures on the Northern Hemisphere that are 1.44 degrees Celsius warmer than the baselline temperature, despite large areas with cold water partly resulting from the huge amounts of meltwater flowing down along the edges of Greenland into the North Atlantic Ocean. The graph below shows Northern Hemisphere and Global sea surface temperature anomalies over May 2014.

By comparison, current (May 27, 2014) surface temperature anomalies of 0.64°C globally and 0.84°C for the NH. The image below shows annual temperature anomalies (land and ocean data).

Meanwhile, the development of this year's 'north hole' at the center of the sea ice appears to persist, as illustrated by the image below.

The real budgetary emergency and the myth of "burnable carbon"

by David Spratt

How fast and how profoundly we act to stop climate change caused by human actions, and work to return to a safe climate, is perhaps the greatest challenge our species has ever faced, but are we facing up to what really needs to be done?

We have to come to terms with two key facts: practically speaking, there is no longer a "carbon budget" for burning fossil fuels while still achieving a two-degree Celsius (2°C) future; and the 2°C cap is now known to be dangerously too high.

No Carbon Budget Left - David Spratt from Breakthrough  -  "We have no carbon budget left
for burning of fossils fuels - emergency action is now the only viable path"  - David Spratt

For the last two decades, climate policy-making has focused on 2°C of global warming impacts as being manageable, and a target achievable by binding international treaties and incremental, non-disruptive, adjustments to economic incentives and regulations (1).

But former UK government advisor Professor Sir Robert Watson says the idea of a 2°C target "is largely out of the window”, International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol calls it "a nice Utopia", and international negotiations chief Christiana Figueres says we need "a miracle". This is because, in their opinions, emissions will not be reduced sufficiently to keep to the necessary "carbon budget" (2).

The carbon budget has come to public prominence in recent years, including in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, as being the difference between the total allowable greenhouse gas emissions for 2°C of warming, and the amount already emitted or spent. The budget varies according to the likelihood of overshooting the target: the higher the risk, the bigger the budget. In the IPCC report, no carbon budget is given for less than a one-in-three chance of failure.

At that one-in-three risk of failure, the IPCC says the total budget is 790 GtC (gigatons, or one billion tons, of carbon), less emissions to 2011 of 515 GtC, leaving a budget of 275 GtC in 2011, or ~245 GtC in 2014 (3).

What is less well understood is that if the risk is low, there is no carbon budget left (4).

Breakthrough National  Climate Restoration
Forum 21-22 June,  Melbourne

Climate change with its non-linear events, tipping points and irreversible events – such as mass extinctions, destruction of ecosystems, the loss of large ice sheets and the triggering of large-scale releases of greenhouse gases from carbon stores such as permafrost and methane clathrates – contains many possibilities for catastrophic failure.

Ian Dunlop, a former senior risk manager and oil and coal industry executive, says the management of catastrophic risk has to be very different from current processes. As serious, irreversible outcomes are likely, this demands very low probabilities of failure: management of catastrophic risk "must centre around contingency planning for high-impact and what were regarded as low-probability events, which unfortunately are now becoming more probable… Major, high-risk industrial operations, such as offshore oil exploration, provide a model, with detailed contingency planning and sequential barriers being put in place to prevent worst-case outcomes" (5).

If a risk-averse (pro-safety) approach is applied – say, of less than 10% probability of exceeding the 2°C target – to carbon budgeting, there is simply no budget available, because it has already been used up. A study from The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research shows that "the combination of a 2°C warming target with high probability of success is now unreachable" using the current suite of policy measures, because the budget has expired (6).

This is illustrated in Figure 1 where, as we move to the right (greater probability of meeting target) along the blue line which is the 2°C carbon budget, we reach a point around 90% probability (blue circle) where the total budget intersects with what we have already emitted.

As well, on-going greenhouse emissions associated with food production and deforestation are often conveniently pushed to one side in discussing carbon budgets. UK scientists have shown that if some reasonably optimistic assumptions are made about deforestation and food-related emissions for the rest of the century, then most emission reduction scenarios are incompatible with holding warming to +2ºC, even with a high 50% probability of exceeding the target. In other words, food and deforestation has taken up the remaining budget, leaving no space for fossil fuel emissions (7).

In addition, the carbon budget analysis makes optimistic and risky assumptions about the stability of Arctic, and of polar and other carbon stores such as permafrost. As one example, the modelling discussed in the IPCC report projects an area of summer Arctic sea-ice cover in the year 2100 higher that actually exists at the moment, yet there is a great deal more warming and sea-ice loss to come this century! In fact, many Arctic specialists think the Arctic will be sea-ice free in summer within the next decade, with consequences for global warming that the carbon budget calculations have significantly underestimated. (8)

Australian Climate Council member Prof. Will Steffen says the IPCC carbon budget may "be rather generous". The IPCC report says the modelling used does not include explicit representation of permafrost soil carbon decomposition in response to future warming, and does not consider slow feedbacks associated associated with vegetation changes and ice sheets. Recent research suggests these events could happen well below 2°C of warming, so they should be taken into account, but they are not.

Accounting for the possible release of methane from melting permafrost and ocean sediment implies a substantially lower budget (9). This reinforces the need to take a pro-safety, risk-averse approach to the carbon budget, especially since some research suggests that Arctic permafrost may be vulnerable at less than 2°C or warming (10).

For all these reasons – that is, prudent catastrophic risk management, accounting for food production and deforestation emissions, and for Arctic sea ice and carbon store instability – the idea of "burnable carbon" – that is, how much more coal, gas and oil we can burn and still keep under 2°C – is a dangerous illusion, based on unrealistic, high-risk, assumptions.

A second consideration is that 2°C of warming is not a safe target. Instead, it's the boundary between dangerous and very dangerous (11), and 1°C higher than experienced during the whole period of human civilisation (12), illustrated in Figure 2. The last time greenhouse gas levels were as high as they are today, modern humans did not exist (13), so we are conducting an experiment for which we have no direct observable evidence from our own history, and for which we do not know the full result.

However, we do understand that many major ecosystems will be lost, a 2°C sea-level rise will eventually be measured in the tens of metres (14), and much of human civilisation and large, productive river delta systems will be swamped. There is now evidence to suggest that the current conditions affecting the West Antarctic ice sheet are sufficient to drive between 1.2 and 4 metres of sea rise (15), and evidence that Greenland will contribute more quickly (16), and they are just two contributors to rising sea levels.

It is now clear that the incremental-adjustment 2°C strategy has run out of time, if for no other reason than the "budget" for burning more fossil fuels is now zero, yet the global economy is still deeply committed to their continuing widespread use.

We all wish the incremental-adjustment 2°C strategy had worked, but it hasn't. It has now expired as a practical plan.

We now have a choice to make: accept much higher levels of warming of 3–5°C that will destroy most species, most people and most of the world's ecosystems; a set of impacts some more forthright scientists say are incompatible with the maintenance of human civilisation.

Or we can conceive of a safe-climate emergency-action approach which would aim to reduce global warming back to the range of conditions experienced during the last 10,000 years, the period of human civilisation and fixed settlement. This would involve fast and large emissions reduction through radical energy demand reductions, whilst a vast scaling-up of clean energy production was organised, together with the remaking of many of our essential systems such as transport and food production, with the target being zero net emissions. In addition, there would need to be a major commitment to atmospheric carbon dioxide drawdown measures. This would need to be done at a speed and scale more akin to the "war economy", where social and economic priority is given to what is perceived to be an overwhelming existential threat.

After 30 years of climate policy and action failure, we are in deep trouble and now have to throw everything we can muster at the climate challenge. This will be demanding and disruptive, because there are no longer any non-radical, incremental paths available.

Prof. Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows, writing in the journal Nature, say that "any contextual interpretation of the science demonstrates that the threshold of 2°C is no longer viable, at least within orthodox political and economic constraints" and that "catastrophic and ongoing failure of market economics and the laissez-faire rhetoric accompanying it (unfettered choice, deregulation and so on) could provide an opportunity to think differently about climate change" (17).

Anderson says there is no longer a non-radical option, and for developed economies to play an equitable role in holding warming to 2°C (with 66% probability), emissions compared to 1990 levels would require at least a 40% reduction by 2018, 70% reduction by 2024, and 90% by 2030. This would require "in effect a Marshall plan for energy supply". As well low-carbon supply technologies cannot deliver the necessary rate of emission reductions and they need to be complemented with rapid, deep and early reductions in energy consumption, what he calls a radical emission reduction strategy (18). All this suggests that even holding warming to a too-high 2°C limit now requires an emergency approach.

Emergency action has proven fair and necessary for great social and economic challenges we have faced before. Call it the great disruption, the war economy, emergency mode, or what you like; the story is still the same, and it is now the only remaining viable path.

keynote speaker, David Spratt, explains why there is no carbon budget left to burn.

Sources:
This article was originally published at ClimateCodeRed.org
Above video, NO CARBON BUDGET LEFT TO BURN, was uploaded by Breakthrough.



Notes

1. Jaeger, C.C. and J. Jaeger (2011), "Three views of two degrees", Reg. Environ. Change, 11: S15-S26; Anderson, K. and A. Bows (2012) “A new paradigm for climate change”, Nature Climate Change 2: 639-70
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194; http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpow; http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/climate-pioneers-see-little-chance-of-avoiding-dangerous-global-warming-20131105-2wyon.html
3. IPCC (2013) "Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers"
4. "For a 90% probability of not exceeding 2C of warming the carbon budget had reduced to zero by 2012, using a multi-agent (that is, the well-mixed greenhouse gases, including CO2 and CH4)", Raupach (2013, unpublished), based on Raupach, M. R., I.N. Harman and J.G. Canadell (2011) "Global climate goals for temperature, concentrations, emissions and cumulative emissions", Report for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. CAWCR Technical Report no. 42. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Melbourne; Rogelj, J., W. Hare et al. (2011) "Emission pathways consistent with a 2°C global temperature limit", Nature Climate Change 1: 413-418 show at Table 1 no feasible pathways for limiting warming to 2°C during the twenty-first century with a "very likely" (>90%) chance of staying below the target, without carbon drawdown.
5. Dunlop, I. (2011), "Managing catastrophic risk", Centre for Policy Development, 
http://cpd.org.au/2011/07/ian-dunlop-managing-catastrophic-risk/
6. Raupach, M. R., I.N. Harman and J.G. Canadell (2011) "Global climate goals for temperature, concentrations, emissions and cumulative emissions", Report for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. CAWCR Technical Report no. 42. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Melbourne. 
7. Anderson, K. and A. Bows (2008) “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366: 3863-3882; Anderson, K. and A. Bows (2011) “Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369: 20–44
8. Wadhams, P. (2012) “Arctic ice cover, ice thickness and tipping points”, AMBIO 41: 23–33; Maslowski, W., C.J. Kinney et al. (2012) "The Future of Arctic Sea Ice", The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40: 625-654
9. IPCC (2013) "Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis;
10. Vaks, A., O.S. Gutareva et al. (2013) “Speleothems Reveal 500,000-Year History of Siberian Permafrost”, Science 340: 183-186; Schaefer, K., T. Zhang et al. (2011) "Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming", Tellus 63:165-180
11. Anderson, K. and A. Bows (2011) “Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369: 20–44
12. Marcott, S.A, J.D. Shakun et al. (2013) "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science 339: 1198-120; Hansen, J., P. Kharecha et al. (2013) "Assessing 'dangerous climate change': Required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature", Plos One 8: 1-26
13. Tripadi, A.K., C.D. Roberts et al. (2009), "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years", Science 326: 1394-1397
14. Rohling, E. J.,K. Grant et al. (2009) “Antarctic temperature and global sea level closely coupled over the past five glacial cycles”, Nature GeoScience, 21 June 2009 `af
15. NASA (2014), "NASA-UCI Study Indicates Loss of West Antarctic Glaciers Appears Unstoppable", Media release, 12 May 2014, http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-uci-study-indicates-loss-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-appears-unstoppable, accessed 19 May 2014; Rignot, E., J. Mouginot et al. (2014) "Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica from 1992 to 2011", Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/2014GL060140; Joughin, I., B.E. Smith et al. (2014), "Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica", Science 344: 735 -738
16. NASA (2014), "Hidden Greenland Canyons Mean More Sea Level Rise", Media release, 19 May 2014, http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/hidden-greenland-canyons-mean-more-sea-level-rise, accessed 19 May 2014; Morlighem, M., E. Rignot et al. (2014), "Deeply incised submarine glacial valleys beneath the Greenland ice sheet", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2167
17. Anderson, K. and A. Bows (2012) “A new paradigm for climate change”, Nature Climate Change 2: 639-70
18. Anderson, K. (2014) "Why carbon prices can’t deliver the 2°C target", 13 August 2013, http://kevinanderson.info/blog/why-carbon-prices-cant-deliver-the-2c-target, accessed 19 May 2014; Anderson, K. (2012) "Climate change going beyond dangerous – Brutal numbers and tenuous hope", Development Dialogue, September 2012; Anderson, K. (2011) "Climate change going beyond dangerous – Brutal numbers and tenuous hope or cognitive dissonance", presentation 5 July 2011, slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/DFID/professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-going-beyond-dangerous; plus (7) above.

The Art of Climate Change

by Dorsi Lynn Diaz

Help be a part of the solution! The Art of Climate Change on Kickstarter - an interactive social media & art show/exhibit this summer.

Climate change is HERE and climate change is happening NOW. It is not a figment of your imagination and the weather outside indeed is "frightening."

As I write this, the UK is getting battered by unprecedented storms and in California where I live, we are facing the possibility of a MEGA drought. As a long-time artist, writer and educator, I have been sounding the alarm bell for years. The question loomed large for me: How are we, as a collective society, going to tackle a huge problem?

That was when I had a light-bulb moment.

The idea came to me last year when I realized we need to have a multi-modal approach to addressing climate change. A hands-on, interactive dialogue with great visuals. In order to tackle the problem we needed to look at all the different aspects of climate change. And thus, the "The Art of Climate Change" was born - and the idea for a project: an art show and exhibit. But not your typical art show!

This show would be interactive and get people thinking about SOLUTIONS to climate change, challenge them to think out of the box, and most importantly, educate them about the how and wheres of climate change plus why places like the Arctic matter. This show could travel to cities and communities all over, and be a blue-print for teaching people about climate change and engage their own local artists, inventors and community in learning about "the problem."



But first I needed a venue to do the first show, and that would be one of the biggest hurdles. I connected with a local gallery, pitched the idea to them and they were impressed. In fact, they really liked my idea because it was "different" because it talked about solutions, not just doom and gloom. So now that I've been approved by their Board of Directors, I've got my venue and the show has taken on a life it its own.

The Art of Climate Change has its venue! Whoooppee!! The show is on the datebook - and it will be in run from June 19 - July 27, 2014 at The Sun Gallery in Hayward, Ca. (located in the Silicon Valley area)

I need help and support however to pull this off. This is a huge endeavor and the show has many different facets to it. I have many costs involved: Marketing, advertising, sign production, printing for the science graphics, some travel, equipment rentals (laptops and TV screens), art supplies, website hosting and building and other production costs... and this is why I am asking for your help. Not only will there be "art" on the walls but there will also be a series of artwork by children on endangered species that I have been teaching for the last several months.

The sections of the exhibit have been broken down into the following areas:

1. A section where we talk about "The Problem". This is where we talk turkey and explain the problem and take a good look at it.

2. There will be a section of the exhibit dedicated to extreme weather photos and art. Like they say, a picture can tell a thousand words, right?

3. Next we need to talk about "The Arctic and why it matters". Those record cold snaps happening in the US? Those are one of the strongest symptoms of our melting Arctic. That's due to our now meandering jet stream.

4. The Methane Monster. Yes there are monsters and this is probably one of the biggest ones we need to be worried about. Remember the dinosaur extinction? Well, scientists say that methane was their undoing. And we certainly don't want to go the way of the dinosaurs, right? So yes, we need to talk about the elephant in the room - that pesky methane monster. Which, by the way, is being released in some pretty scary amounts right now from underneath that warming Arctic water. No, it's not good. Not good at all.

5. A section just for THE CHILDREN and EDUCATION. This is the biggest reason I am doing this project. I want to be part of the solution to securing their future. One of the big parts of this project is teaching the kids. Right now I am doing a series of projects with them on endangered animal species. The way I look at it is if we can "teach the children we can touch the world." Their artwork will be prominently displayed in the art/show exhibit. So far they have done done art of endangered Polar Bear cubs, the Monarch Butterfly, Bees, Barn Owls and the Maui Dolphin.

6. A section with a "CALL TO ACTION"....this is where attendees are encouraged to engage with the problem so they can BE PART of the solution...which btw is the next big part of the art show/exhibit....

7. SOLUTIONS. This is where I have things planned that are definitely out of the box. Like inventions to slow down climate change by friends of mine that happen to be very creative too.

So that is my Kickstarter project in a very big nutshell. The really exciting thing though is how this blooming project has just sort of "vacuumed people" up...all kinds of people...from all around the world! Here are some of them that are going to be part of my project:

• Climate Change Professor Paul Beckwith from the University of Ottawa, who will do a live Skype Q & A session with us. Attendees can sit down face to face with a leading climate change educator and ask questions about climate change from inside the show.
• A life size mural of a Polar Bear with an Arctic scene, painted in the show/exhibit hall by muralist Lisa Hamblett-Montagnese.
• Photographer Rose Gold will make the day even more special for kids by taking photos of them with the Polar bear.
• A display of children and families climate change (endangered species) artwork from students of the Sun Gallery, A Joyful Noise Learning Center, Green Forest Art Studio, The Community Church of Hayward and Young Rembrandt's of the East Bay. 
• A live viewing of Andy Lee Robinsons video on a flat screen TV which will be available for viewing all during the exhibits 5 1/2 weeks. Andy's video shows the decline of the Arctic ice accompanied by a musical composition by Andy called "Ice Dreams"
• A graphic of "The Arctic Death Spiral" by Andy Lee Robinson, to be displayed in the Arctic section of the show.
• A full size poster by Sam Carana (who set up the Arctic Methane Emergency Group on FB and edits the Arctic-News blog) on the effects of runaway climate change, designed by Sam and displayed in the Arctic section.
• Original cartoons by Sam Carana, also an adviser on this project, displayed in the Methane section of the show.
• Quotes with ideas by Harold Hensel, contributor to the Arctic-news blog and advisor on this project.
• A full size poster of a tunnel invention as a possible solution to our warming waters by Patrick McNulty. Posted in Solutions.
• A display of alternative fuel named "Bio-Fuel" with information by inventor Jay Toups. Posted in Solutions.
• A live aquaponics display by Michael and Natalie Elola of Lucky Garden Hydroponics on how to grow vegetables and fruit indoors without using soil. Posted in Solutions.
• A full size Polar bear costume mascot to be used for outreach. Designed and sewn by Nancy Martinez
• A call for art by The Sun Gallery for extreme weather photos, climate change art and recycled and re-purposed art
• A display of childrens books about climate change. Joe Santiago's books will also be featured. Displayed under Education.
• The original video for the project will be displayed on a flat-screen video at the show for 5 1/2 weeks. Video editing and production by Mead Rose at Web Design by Mead.
• Artistically designed Climate change confections by pastry chef Cori Diaz for the Artists reception
• A local rock/punk band that sings songs about climate change. They will sing at the Artists reception.
• Educational tables set up by the City of Hayward with information about the cities climate change plan along with other entities like the EPA, Water Conservation Board, EBMUD and Waste Management.
• Deagon B. Williams, friend and adviser on this project.
• Advertising help with the project by Trish McDermott of Avatar Tech Pubs.

Endangered Animal Art series taught by Dorsi Diaz

he Arctic "Death" Spiral in The Art of Climate Change

Costs for The Art of Climate Change

The many people people contributing their talents to The Art of Climate Change

The main reason I am doing the show is for them

Sam Carana's contribution to the show - a very telling graphic

The types of climate change disasters we need to talk about

This is what we need to be talking about.

Risks and challenges

I have been working on this project already for over 4 months, successfully pulling people together to either create art for the exhibit, or to contribute educational material. The biggest obstacle for the show was of course the venue but I have the venue for the art show/exhibit set in stone from June 19 - July 27 of this year. A solid foundation has been made, the main thing I need help with now is the financial expenses that the show will cost me - like the rental of equipment to do the live Skyping session with Professor Paul Beckwith, and the special art projects I plan to do within our community. I also have plans to do more community outreach to reach more local public agencies and I plan to have more events centered around the show (how much I can do will be determined by how much funding I get)

How will I deal with any special surprises or costs that I might not have possibly factored in? I will do what I always did in business, I will work with the issue and either adjust or downsize that particular part, - possibly even bartering for services, or ask for donations to help with a particular cost.

What unique challenges might I have after the project is funded? Well I don't foresee any emergencies but if there are any, I have a network of people that will help and advise me through any major problems. The only thing I see is that I may not be able to accommodate all the art that may come in, but that's a good problem to have! Better to have more than not enough - and director Liesa Lietzke and Jacqueline Cooper at The Sun Gallery where the show is will be able to help walk me through any major hiccups if there are any.

Questions?

Have a question? If the info above doesn't help, you can ask questions at Kickstarter to the project creator.

Donate

To donate to this project, go to Kickstarter.