Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
Posted on 24 November 2014 by Guest Author
The following article is reprinted by permission of its author, Stephen Leahy, who writes for the Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency. To access the article as posted on the IPS website, click here.
The as-yet unfinished exhibit area which forms part of the temporary installations that the host country has built in Lima to hold the COP 20, which runs Dec. 1-12. Credit: COP20 Peru
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Nov 17 2014 (IPS) - This December, 195 nations plus the European Union will meet in Lima for two weeks for the crucial U.N. Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, known as COP 20. The hope in Lima is to produce the first complete draft of a new global climate agreement.
However, this is like writing a book with 195 authors. After five years of negotiations, there is only an outline of the agreement and a couple of ‘chapters’ in rough draft.
The deadline is looming: the new climate agreement to keep climate change to less than two degrees C is to be signed in Paris in December 2015.
“A tremendous amount of work has to be done in Lima,” said Erika Rosenthal, an attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organisation and advisor to the chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
“Time is short after Lima and Paris cannot fail,” said Rosenthal. “Paris is the key political moment when the world can decisively move to reap all the benefits of a clean, carbon-free economy.”
Posted on 23 November 2014 by John Hartz
President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge by John Abraham attracted the highest number of comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week. Coming in a close second was John Cook's Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change. Both articles were inititally posted on the blog, Climate Consensus - the 97% hosted on The Guardian.
El Niño Watch
Tropical Pacific Ocean moves closer to El Niño Enso Wrap-Up posted by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology on Nov 18, 2014
Toon of the Week
h/t to I Heart Climate Scientists
Posted on 22 November 2014 by John Hartz
- Acid maps reveal worst of climate change
- Buffalo mega snowstorm tied to climate change?
- China will place a limit on coal use in 2020
- Climate change investment falls for second year in 2013
- Fossil-fueled Republicanism
- House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
- NASA CO2 animation recalls 1859 account of the global flow of this gas
- New Zealand ducking the climate question
- NRG sets goals to cut carbon emissions
- Record North Pacific temperatures threatening B.C. marine species
- Sydney heatwave and New York snowstorm: how to read the world's weird weather
- The U.S. public is wrong on climate, as it was on slavery, women’s rights
- Toyota hopes to recreate Prius success with hydrogen-powered Mirai
- U.S. voters view climate change at 'hyperlocal' level: Dem donor
- Will next UN climate treaty be a thriller, or shaggy dog story?
Acid maps reveal worst of climate change
Much of the change in climate change is happening to the ocean. It’s not just the extra heat hiding within the waves. The seven seas also absorb a big share of the carbon dioxide released by burning the fossilized sunshine known as coal, natural gas and oil. All those billions and billions of CO2 molecules interact with the brine to make it ever so slightly more acidic over time and, as more and more CO2 gets absorbed, the oceans become more acidic.
Now scientists have delivered the most comprehensive maps of this acid phenomena, a global picture of the oceans in 2005 against which future scientists can track just how much more acidic the oceans have become.
Acid Maps Reveal Worst of Climate Change by David Biello, Scientific American, Nov 20, 2014
Posted on 20 November 2014 by John Cook
An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper the Skeptical Science team published in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers. Finding an overwhelming consensus was nothing new. Studies in 2009 and 2010 also found 97% agreement among climate scientists on human-caused global warming. Nevertheless, the paper attracted much media attention, including tweets from Elon Musk and President Obama.
We expected our work would be attacked from those who reject climate science. We weren’t disappointed. Since publication, hundreds of blog posts, reports, videos, papers and op-eds have been published attacking our paper. A year and a half later, there is no sign of slowing. But this is just the latest chapter in over two decades of manufactured doubt on the scientific consensus about climate change.
What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change. They weren’t arguing against the existence of a consensus, but whether we should be communicating the consensus. This surprised me, as our approach to climate communication was evidence-based, drawing on social science research. So in response, I along with co-author Peter Jacobs have published a scholarly paper summarising all the evidence and research underscoring the importance of consensus messaging.
One objection against consensus messaging is that scientists should be talking about evidence, rather than consensus. After all, our understanding of climate change is based on empirical measurements, not a show of hands. But this objection misunderstands the point of consensus messaging. It’s not about “proving” human-caused global warming. It’s about expressing the state of scientific understanding of climate change, which is built on a growing body of evidence.
Consensus messaging recognises the fact that people rely on expert opinion when it comes to complex scientific issues. Studies in 2011 and 2013 found that perception of scientific consensus is a gateway belief that has a flow-on effect to a number of other beliefs and attitudes. When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.
Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus. The evidence says otherwise. Public surveys have found that the public are deeply unaware of the consensus. On average, the public think there’s a 50:50 debate. There are several contributors to this “consensus gap”, including mainstream media’s tendency to give contrarian voices equal weight with the climate science community.
Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn’t communicate consensus because public views have not moved on. In other words, the fact that public opinion about consensus hasn’t shifted over the last decade implies that consensus messaging is ineffective.
Dan Kahan argues that consensus is a polarizing message. Liberals are predisposed to respond positively to consensus messaging. Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.
Political ideology certainly does influence people’s attitudes towards climate change. The following graph shows data I’ve collected from a representative sample of Americans, asking them how many climate scientists agreed about human-caused global warming. The horizontal access in this graph represents political ideology (specifically, support for an unregulated free market, free of interference from government).
Posted on 19 November 2014 by John Hartz
- A carbon tax could bolster wobbly progress in renewable energy
- A dam revival, despite risks
- Congress is about to sabotage Obama’s historic climate deal
- David Cameron urges Tony Abbott to do more on climate change
- G20 pledges lift Green Climate Fund towards $10 billion U.N. goal
- Giant batteries connected to the grid: the future of energy storage?
- Global warming is probably boosting lake-effect snows
- Humanity’s epic planetary facelift: Climate change, mass extinction and the uncertain future of life on earth
- NASA, other data sow globe had warmest October
- Peru prepares to host climate talks as its Indigenous forest defenders die
- Tackle air pollution to kickstart climate action, says new study
- Turbulent week for global climate policy leaves many questions
- U.S. Senate Democrats block Keystone pipeline
- Where is global warming's missing heat?
- White House turns climate change spotlight to U.S. cities, towns
A carbon tax could bolster wobbly progress in renewable energy
A couple of years ago, the smart money was on wind. In 2012, 13 gigawatts worth of wind-powered electricity generation capacity was installed in the United States, enough to meet the needs of roughly three million homes. That was some 40 percent of all the capacity added to the nation’s power grid that year, up from seven gigawatts added in 2011 and just over five in 2010.
But then a federal subsidy ended. Only one gigawatt worth of wind power capacity was installed in 2013. In the first half of 2014, additions totaled0.835 gigawatts. Facing a Congress controlled by Republicans with little interest in renewable energy, wind power’s future suddenly appears much more uncertain.
“Wind is competitive in more and more markets,” said Letha Tawney at the World Resources Institute. “But any time there is uncertainty about the production tax credit, it all stops.”
A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Wobbly Progress in Renewable Energy by Eduardo Porter, New York Times, Nov 18, 2014
Posted on 19 November 2014 by Guest Author
They came, they saw, they cuddled koalas and world leaders then largely ignored the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s instructions to ignore the global, intergenerational and morally challenging kerfuffle over climate change.
All in all the last seven days have proven to be momentous for climate change policy - both at the Brisbane G20 summit in Queensland and elsewhere.
Suspicions were confirmed, deals were announced and positions were galvanized, but there are still major questions as the world tries to find a safe route to a new global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
I’ve been doing a bit of unpicking. Here are the threads.
Abbott coal’s great defender
It’s hard to think of a sterner test of Tony Abbott’s resolve to be the coal industry’s great international defender as that which he faced in Brisbane.
In the run up to the meeting, the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States and China, announced what many described as a “historic” agreement to kerb emissions (more on this in a bit).
As the host of the G20, Australia had already faced concerted pressure both behind the scenes and in front of them to make climate change a more central part of the meeting’s agenda.
When the US President Barack Obama finally arrived in Brisbane, he headed to the University of Queensland to deliver a speech where he called on other leaders to deliver a strong global agreement next year in Paris.
Posted on 18 November 2014 by John Abraham
What a change a few years makes. For those of us concerned about climate change, seven years ago marked a low-point. It was a time where no meaningful actions had been taken to reduce carbon pollution and prepare our nation and the world for the threat of global warming. Now, we celebrate a series of major plans and actions that have the potential for helping us avoid the worst climate risks.
These past years have cemented Obama’s legacy as a climate-aware president. They have also cemented the opposition (as if more cement was needed) as either too weak-minded to understand basic physics or too cowardly, favoring political expediency over the fate of future generations. This is one of those issues on which history books hinge. This was the time the USA took a leadership role to simultaneously reduce carbon pollution, adapt to the unavoidable changes in the pipeline, and build the energy infrastructure to lead in the future’s energy economy.
What actions has the Obama administration taken? We can remember back to the increase in fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles and finalization of standards for commercial vehicles. These standards not only reduce carbon emissions but they lower costs to consumers and preserve the valuable resource petroleum.
Perhaps the most significant actions taken by the administration deal with pollution from existing and new coal power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a Clean Power Plant to reduce power-plant emissions. The plan allows flexibility in meeting emission reductions reflecting different conditions and power-portfolios across the country.
The administration has set forth an international agreement to reduce very potent greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons. This agreement was exciting because it gave lie to the idea that USA action would put as at an economic disadvantage. What this agreement showed is that when the USA acts, other countries follow.
Posted on 17 November 2014 by Marcin Popkiewicz
High concentration of CO2 reduces man's intellectual abilities
Did you ever experience being at a lecture or a meeting in a room where you felt tired, your eyes were closing and no matter how hard you tried you could not concentrate? The reason did not have to be a boring subject or a mediocre lecturer – it is a common experience caused by high concentration of carbon dioxide in the air of a crowded and poorly ventilated conference room or a classroom.
People exhale carbon dioxide. If the room is crowded, small and poorly ventilated, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air grows. When in turn we inhale such air, the carbon dioxide contained in it gets dissolved in our blood and reacts with water to create carbonic acid [H2CO3], which, in turn dissolves into ions of hydrogen [H+] and bicarbonate [HCO3−]. Increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions increases blood acidity and creates electrolyte imbalance, causing increased discomfort and decline in intellectual performance. We feel tired, numb and less capable of any mental or physical effort.
Posted on 16 November 2014 by John Hartz
Speaking at the University of Queensland, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, reminded his audience of college and high school students that he had tweeted about The Consensus Project (TCP) last year. Here are the President's words:
This university is recognized as one of the world’s great institutions of science and teaching. Your research led to the vaccine that protects women and girls around the world from cervical cancer. Your innovations have transformed how we treat disease and how we unlock new discoveries. Your studies have warned the world about the urgent threat of climate change. In fact, last year I even tweeted one of your studies to my 31 million followers on Twitter. (Laughter.) Just bragging a little bit. (Applause.) I don’t think that’s quite as much as Lady Gaga, but it’s pretty good. (Laughter.) That’s still not bad.
Remarks by President Obama at the University of Queensland, White House Briefing Room, Nov 15, 2014
Click here to access a video of President Obama's address.
Toon of the Week
h/t to I Heart Climate Scientists
Posted on 15 November 2014 by John Hartz
- 4 reasons Republicans are losing their sh*t over the climate deal
- Bailing out the climate wreckers at the G20
- China, coal, climate
- China tries to save Earth; Republicans furious
- Does global warming make food less nutritious?
- Experts say Obama Climate Fund pledge far short of what is owed
- Fossil fuels with $550 billion subsidies hurt renewables
- Global warming could increase U.S. lightning strikes by 50 percent
- House votes to build Keystone
- Obama puts climate change at fore in speech at U of Queensland
- Obama to pledge up to $3bn to help poor countries on climate change
- U.S.-China climate pact could boost Indian efforts
- US–China emissions deal will put pressure on Australian growth
- US/China emission targets should 'be floor, not ceiling' of climate action
- White House hints at veto as Congress moves on Keystone pipeline
4 reasons Republicans are losing their sh*t over the climate deal
Our economy can’t take the President’s ideological War on Coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners. This unrealistic plan, that the President would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs. The President said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them. It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape. Easing the burden already created by EPA regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.
McConnell has frequently complained that reducing our emissions is pointless if other countries won’t do the same. Just last month, explaining why the EPA’s proposed power plant regulations are all pain and no gain, he said, “nobody else is going to do that. The Indians and Chinese are building coal plants.”
4 reasons Republicans are losing their sh*t over the U.S.-China climate deal by Ben Adler, Grist, Nov 12, 2014
Posted on 14 November 2014 by dana1981
This week, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled a secretly negotiated agreement for both countries to slow global warming by pledging to reduce carbon pollution. Specifically, President Obama pledged that the USA would cut its carbon pollution 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025, while President Xi pledged that by 2030, Chinese carbon pollution will peak and 20% of the country’s energy will come from low-carbon sources.
This agreement received predominantly high praise because it represents the world’s two biggest net carbon polluters taking a leading role in committing to tackle the threats posed by human-caused global warming. China in particular is often used as an excuse by those in the United States and around the world who oppose taking steps to slow global warming.
With the announcement of this agreement, the Chinese president has agreed that his country must begin the process of slowing the growth of and eventually reducing its carbon pollution. The common refrain “nothing we do matters unless China acts” is moot.
However, Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were among the few who issued negative public statements about the climate agreement. McConnell in particular badly misunderstood the practical consequences of the Chinese and American carbon pledges, saying,
As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country,
Senator McConnell misunderstood the Chinese target of reaching peak carbon pollution levels by 2030 as a pledge to “do nothing.” In reality, China has been developing rapidly with hundreds of millions of citizens rising out of poverty, thus demanding more energy. Much of that demand has been met with new coal power plants; China has added one and a half times the entire US coal power plant fleet in just the past decade. As a result, Chinese carbon pollution has been rising fast.
China could not meet its climate pledge by maintaining business-as-usual (BAU) and doing “nothing.” Quite the opposite; curbing those rising carbon emissions as China’s economy continues to grow will require substantial effort. That’s why President Xi also pledged that 20% of the country’s energy would come from low-carbon sources by 2030.
In comparison, the United States will have a relatively easy time meeting the pledge made by President Obama. US carbon pollution is already about 10–15% below 2005 levels and falling by about 1.5% per year. Achieving the target of 26–28% emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2025 will only require continuing the current rate at which American carbon pollution is already falling.
Posted on 13 November 2014 by John Abraham
Just this week, a new study has appeared which describes a clever method for measuring the flows of ocean currents and their impacts on ice shelves. This study has identified a major mechanism for melting ice in the Southern Hemisphere.
The paper, co-authored by Andrew Thompson, Karen Heywood, and colleagues is very novel. The scientists used sea gliders to identify water flows that bring warm waters to the base of ice shelves in Antarctica. As I’ve written before, ocean currents are complex; you cannot neglect their impact on the Earth’s climate.
In some parts of the ocean, dense waters near the surface fall to the ocean floor and spread across the globe. In other regions, waters from the deep rise to the surface. Similarly, waters move horizontally and carry their heat with them. In some cases the surface waters and the mid-depth waters flow in different directions.
But regardless of the direction of flow, these waters carry energy with them. This process, often called “advection,” results in a major redistribution of heat across the globe. Sometimes, warm waters flow into cold regions, transferring heat, and melting ice. It is this phenomenon that was at the center of the current paper.
Fluids sometimes move as large directional masses (sometimes called bulk motion) caused by some agent of motion, for instance winds that blow over the surface and drag waters. Other motions are characterized by swirls and eddies – not unidirectional flow. This type of motions is called eddy-induced transport. A determination of which type of transport dominates and where they dominate is important to understanding Antarctic ice melt.
Posted on 12 November 2014 by John Hartz
- Ahead of global talks, all eyes on U.S. contribution to Climate Fund
- A tricky transition from fossil fuel
- Capping warming at 2 C not enough to avert disaster
- Conservatives don't hate climate change, they hate the proposed solutions
- G20 states spend $88bn in fossil fuel exploration subsidies
- Global warming worsening watery dead zones
- Interview with Bill McKibben: 'When the history of this time is written'
- New U.S.-China climate deal is a game changer
- Post climate pact, IEA warns fossil fuel trends dire
- Republicans vow to fight E.P.A. and approve Keystone pipeline
- The end of beaches? Why the world’s shorelines are in serious trouble
- Underwater 'storms' may hold key to melting Antarctic ice
- U.S. and China announce new climate goals
- Use the Web? Congrats, you’re an environmentalist.
- What you need to know about U.S.-China Climate Pact
A tricky transition from fossil fuel
Denmark, a tiny country on the northern fringe of Europe, is pursuing the world’s most ambitious policy against climate change. It aims to end the burning of fossil fuels in any form by 2050 — not just in electricity production, as some other countries hope to do, but in transportation as well.
Now a question is coming into focus: Can Denmark keep the lights on as it chases that lofty goal?
Lest anyone consider such a sweeping transition to be impossible in principle, the Danes beg to differ. They essentially invented the modern wind-power industry, and have pursued it more avidly than any country. They are above 40 percent renewable power on their electric grid, aiming toward 50 percent by 2020. The political consensus here to keep pushing is all but unanimous.
A Tricky Transition From Fossil Fuel: Denmark Aims for 100 Percent Renewable Energy by Justin Gillis, New York Times, Nov 10, 2014
Posted on 12 November 2014 by Guest Author
This article was originally posted on The Carbon Brief on Nov 10, 2014
by Robert McSweeney
At current rates, ice sheet loss will become the most significant contributor to global sea level rise during this century, yet there is still a lot that scientists don't know about the underlying causes. This is partly because Antarctica is such a difficult place to take measurements.
But now robotic underwater gliders are giving scientists new insight into why the Antarctic ice sheet is melting.
An ice sheet is a huge layer of ice that sits on land. The two on the Earth today are found on Antarctica and Greenland, but in the last ice age there were also ice sheets on North America and northern Europe.
The Antarctic ice sheet spans more than 14 million square kilometers, which is roughly the same size as the US and Mexico put together. The ice sheet also spills out onto the surrounding ocean in the form of ice shelves.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing around 150 billion tonnes of ice per year. One of the main areas of ice loss is from the Antarctic Peninsula, shown in the red rectangle in the map below.
Map of Antarctica. Antarctic Peninsula shown in red rectangle. Creative Commons.
Posted on 11 November 2014 by gws
More research published in 2014 is consistent with the previous notion that the shale boom in the US has been, and likely still is, causing much larger fugitive methane (and higher hydrocarbon) emissions than claimed by the industry.
In a recent publication in Earth's Future, a new journal published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) dedicated to "global change and sustainability", a German-US team of researchers showed increasing atmospheric methane abundances over two rapidly developing shale areas, the Bakken and Eagle Ford shales in North Dakota and south Texas, respectively. Their methane emissions estimate is based on the difference in atmospheric methane in these areas between the years prior said rapid development, 2006-2008, and during it, 2009-2011.
Mapping methane anomalies
Data for the authors' analyses came from the European Space Agency (ESA) ENVISAT's instrument SCIAMACHY, and is unfortunately not available beyond early 2012, when contact with the satellite was lost. The instrument measured the total amount of methane in the atmosphere, the overwhelming amount of which is in the lower 10-12 km, the troposphere. Based on the resolution of the instrument, and the amount of time the satellite spent overhead, the authors used 3 years of data to get high enough precision for their study. They also accounted for how winds displaced the emitted methane differently between the two study periods. The result is depicted in Figure 1 below.
Posted on 10 November 2014 by dana1981
Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest Synthesis Report, summarizing the scientific research on the causes and impacts of global warming, and how we can mitigate its consequences. The report included various graphs showing how we’re changing the Earth’s climate, and concluded that humans are causing rapid and dangerous global warming.
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
Much of the report focused on the risks associated with these rapid climate changes. Fundamentally, climate change is a risk management problem. Even if you’re sceptical of the vast body of scientific research pointing to dangerous and potentially catastrophic climate change, there’s a very good chance the experts and their supporting evidence are correct and your scepticism is misplaced. The IPCC report put those risks into perspective,
Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.
Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.
The key word here is “irreversible,” and it’s used 14 times in the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policymakers. For example, if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica collapse into the ocean, as they’ve already begun to, we can’t take the ice out of the ocean and put it back on land. That lost ice and the sea level rise it causes are irreversible impacts.
Conversely, policies to slow global warming are reversible. A new study by scientists at Duke University found that the widespread rejection of climate science by American political conservatives is in large part due to their distaste for the proposed solutions. Climate contrarians are afraid that climate policies will slow economic growth, despite evidence to the contrary.
However, if it turns out that the sceptics are right in their optimism that the best case climate scenario will occur, and if we go too far in our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, we can easily scale those efforts back. We can’t reanimate extinct species, but we can adjust climate policies as needed.
Speaking of species extinctions, the IPCC discussed that serious threat as well,
A large fraction of species face increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence).
Marine species are also at risk due to the dual threats of warming oceans and ocean acidification, both of which are caused by carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels.
Since the beginning of the industrial era, oceanic uptake of CO2 has resulted in acidification of the ocean; the pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 (high confidence), corresponding to a 26% increase in acidity
The IPCC concluded that if we take serious action to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we can limit the future increase in ocean acidity to about 16%. If we continue on a business-as-usual fossil fuel dependent path, ocean acidity will increase by around 100%, with dire consequences for marine ecosystems. This will also hurt our fisheries and contribute to food insecurity.
Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence) ... Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more14 above late-20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence).
As these figure below from the report also illustrates, about 70% of studies indicate that crop yields will decline as the Earth continues to warm after 2030, with a high chance that yields could decline by 25% or more by the end of the century if we continue on our current path.
Posted on 9 November 2014 by John Hartz
The 2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #45B attracted the highest number of comments of the items posted on SkS during the past week. Dana's article, Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science garnered the second highest number.
Toon of the Week
See: Voters put climate change policy in the hands of climate change denier by David Horsey, Los Angeles Times, Nov 7, 2014
Posted on 8 November 2014 by John Hartz
- Biggest Brazil metro area desperate for water
- Climate change is messing with pollination
- Climate economics expert urges "critical" investment shift
- Climate talks grapple with regional carbon markets
- Environmentalists mostly counting election losses
- Higher temperatures may result in fewer bees
- Mitch McConnell feels a “deep responsibility” to block climate action
- Poland rejects IPCC target of zero emissions by 2100
- Surprise! This GOP Senator's theory about volcanoes and climate change is totally wrong.
- This man is about to become one of America’s most powerful climate villains
- Waiting for El Niño. Still. Again.
- World losing battle against global warming
Biggest Brazil metro area desperate for water
It’s been nearly a month since Diomar Pereira has had running water at his home in Itu, a commuter city outside Sao Paulo that is at the epicenter of the worst drought to hit southeastern Brazil in more than eight decades.
Like others in this city whose indigenous name means “big waterfall,” Pereira must scramble to find water for drinking, bathing and cooking. On a recent day when temperatures hit 90 degrees (32 Celsius), he drove to a community kiosk where people with empty soda bottles and jugs lined up to use a water spigot. Pereira filled several 13-gallon containers, which he loaded into his Volkswagen bug.
“I have a job and five children to raise and am always in a rush to find water so we can bathe,” said Pereira, a truck driver who makes the trip to get water every couple of days. “It’s very little water for a lot of people.”
Biggest Brazil metro area desperate for water, AP/Washington Post, Nov 7, 2014
Posted on 7 November 2014 by John Abraham
Over the past decades, scientists have made many measurements across the globe to characterize how fast the Earth is warming. It may seem trivial, but taking the Earth’s temperature is not very straightforward. You could use temperature thermometers at weather stations that are spread across the globe. Measurements can be taken daily and information sent to central repositories where some average is determined.
A downside of thermometers is that they do not cover the entire planet – large polar regions, oceans, and areas in the developing world have no or very few measurements. Another problem is that they may change over time. Perhaps the thermometers are replaced or moved, or perhaps the landscape around the thermometers changes which could impact the reading. And of course, measurements of the ocean regions are a whole other story.
An alternative technique is to use satellites to extract temperatures from radiative emission at microwave frequencies from oxygen in the atmosphere. Satellites can cover the entire globe and thereby avoid the problem with discrete sensors. However, satellites also change over time, their orbit can change, or their detection devices can also change.
Another issue with satellites is that the measurements are made throughout the atmosphere that can contain contaminants to corrupt the measurement. For instance, it is possible that water droplets (either in clouds or precipitation) can influence the temperature readings.
So, it is clear that there are strengths and weaknesses to any temperature measurement method. You would hope that either method would tell a similar story, and they do to some extent, but there are key differences. Basically, the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is heating slower than the Earth surface.
In fact, for the time period 1987–2006, the temperatures among the four groups that collect satellite data ranges from 0.086°C per decade to 0.22°C per decade. In more recent years, the trend is much reduced, and for two of the leading satellite groups (University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems), temperatures are basically flat.
Posted on 6 November 2014 by John Hartz
- Britain had one of warmest and wettest years on record
- Global warming could make your pollen allergies a lot worse
- How does the IPCC know climate change is happening?
- Meet the Senate's new Climate Denial Caucus
- Midterm elections, the Senate, and Republican science denial
- Millions of Asians exposed to big climate disasters - Oxfam
- No quick fix for overpopulation — let’s focus on climate
- Our kids need to learn about climate change
- ‘Remarkable opportunity' for global economy in upcoming climate talks
- Science in a Republican Senate: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Seven myths about disasters
- The worst climate pollution is carbon dioxide
- There should be no more international reports on climate science
- UN to investigate claims that UK spies infiltrated climate talks
- Why two crucial pages were left out of the latest U.N. climate report
Britain had one of warmest and wettest years on record
The UK is on course to experience the warmest and one of the wettest years since records began more than a century ago, feeding fears that future droughts and flash floods could cost lives.
Figures from the Met Office show January to October has been the warmest since records began in 1910, and also the second-wettest. Unless November and December are extremely cold, 2014 will be the hottest year on record.
Experts say this the result of climate change, which they warn could place a burden on the NHS as Britons struggling to cope with future heatwaves end up in hospital.
Britain had one of warmest and wettest years on record by Press Association/The Guardian, Nov 4, 2014