Category Archives: Emissions

Unique climate change has no natural cause

The planet is warming faster than ever, worldwide. Scientists know this unique climate change is not caused by nature. But they checked again, to be certain.

LONDON, 19 August, 2019 – European and US scientists have cleared up a point that has been nagging away at climate science for decades: not only is the planet warming faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years, but this unique climate change really does have neither a historic precedent nor a natural cause.

Other historic changes – the so-called Medieval Warm Period and then the “Little Ice Age” that marked the 17th to the 19th centuries – were not global. The only period in which the world’s climate has changed, everywhere and at the same time, is right now.

And other shifts in the past, marked by advancing Alpine glaciers and sustained droughts in Africa, could be pinned down to a flurry of violent volcanic activity.

The present sustained, ubiquitous warming is unique in that it can be coupled directly with the Industrial Revolution, the clearing of the forests, population growth and profligate use of fossil fuels.

The finding is part of a sustained examination of global climate history, based not just on written and pictorial records but also studies of ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other proxy evidence assembled by an international partnership called the Past Global Changes Consortium. It is reported in the journal Nature.

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle”

Research like this is a tidying-up operation. Climate scientists, conservationists, glaciologists, marine biologists, geologists and economists all know that climate change is happening, and that it is happening as a consequence of accelerated human activity over the last two centuries.

But from the start, there have always been gnawing questions: hasn’t the climate always changed? If global temperatures rose between 700 AD and 1400 AD, and then fell again, is what is happening now not part of some similar long-term cycle? And until now, that has remained without a confident, categorical answer.

So the latest study surprises nobody. But it matters, because the Nature study clarifies a point of possible confusion. There have been changes in modern human history, but none of them global and synchronous (happening at the same time). They were random fluctuations within the climate system, and even changes in solar activity or volcanic surges could not affect all of the planet at any one time.

“It’s true that during the Little Ice Age it was generally colder across the whole world,” says Raphel Neukom of the University of Bern in Switzerland, and first author, “but not everywhere at the same time. The peak periods of pre-industrial warm and cold periods occurred at different times in different places.”

And his Bern colleague Stefan Brönnimann clears up another point in a related study in the pages of Nature Geoscience.

Volcanic influence

The Little Ice Age began in Europe with no obvious trigger, but it was certainly reinforced and extended by more violent than usual volcanic activity in the tropics between 1808 and 1835. Mt Tambora in what is now Indonesia put so much ash into the stratosphere to screen sunlight and drop temperatures that 1816 became known as the Year without a Summer.

But there were also four other eruptions. Between 1820 and 1850, Alpine glaciers – now in alarming retreat – actually advanced. African and Indian monsoon systems weakened, and rain that should have fallen on hot soils dropped as more snow over Europe.

“Given the large climatic changes seen in the early 19th century, it is difficult to define a pre-industrial climate, a notion to which all our climate targets refer,” said Professor Brönnimann. “Frequent volcanic eruptions caused an actual gear shift in the global climate system.”

Commenting on the Nature finding, Mark Maslin, a climatologist at University College London, said: “Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has changed synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the planet has warmed. This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.

“This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climates of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.” – Climate News Network

The planet is warming faster than ever, worldwide. Scientists know this unique climate change is not caused by nature. But they checked again, to be certain.

LONDON, 19 August, 2019 – European and US scientists have cleared up a point that has been nagging away at climate science for decades: not only is the planet warming faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years, but this unique climate change really does have neither a historic precedent nor a natural cause.

Other historic changes – the so-called Medieval Warm Period and then the “Little Ice Age” that marked the 17th to the 19th centuries – were not global. The only period in which the world’s climate has changed, everywhere and at the same time, is right now.

And other shifts in the past, marked by advancing Alpine glaciers and sustained droughts in Africa, could be pinned down to a flurry of violent volcanic activity.

The present sustained, ubiquitous warming is unique in that it can be coupled directly with the Industrial Revolution, the clearing of the forests, population growth and profligate use of fossil fuels.

The finding is part of a sustained examination of global climate history, based not just on written and pictorial records but also studies of ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other proxy evidence assembled by an international partnership called the Past Global Changes Consortium. It is reported in the journal Nature.

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle”

Research like this is a tidying-up operation. Climate scientists, conservationists, glaciologists, marine biologists, geologists and economists all know that climate change is happening, and that it is happening as a consequence of accelerated human activity over the last two centuries.

But from the start, there have always been gnawing questions: hasn’t the climate always changed? If global temperatures rose between 700 AD and 1400 AD, and then fell again, is what is happening now not part of some similar long-term cycle? And until now, that has remained without a confident, categorical answer.

So the latest study surprises nobody. But it matters, because the Nature study clarifies a point of possible confusion. There have been changes in modern human history, but none of them global and synchronous (happening at the same time). They were random fluctuations within the climate system, and even changes in solar activity or volcanic surges could not affect all of the planet at any one time.

“It’s true that during the Little Ice Age it was generally colder across the whole world,” says Raphel Neukom of the University of Bern in Switzerland, and first author, “but not everywhere at the same time. The peak periods of pre-industrial warm and cold periods occurred at different times in different places.”

And his Bern colleague Stefan Brönnimann clears up another point in a related study in the pages of Nature Geoscience.

Volcanic influence

The Little Ice Age began in Europe with no obvious trigger, but it was certainly reinforced and extended by more violent than usual volcanic activity in the tropics between 1808 and 1835. Mt Tambora in what is now Indonesia put so much ash into the stratosphere to screen sunlight and drop temperatures that 1816 became known as the Year without a Summer.

But there were also four other eruptions. Between 1820 and 1850, Alpine glaciers – now in alarming retreat – actually advanced. African and Indian monsoon systems weakened, and rain that should have fallen on hot soils dropped as more snow over Europe.

“Given the large climatic changes seen in the early 19th century, it is difficult to define a pre-industrial climate, a notion to which all our climate targets refer,” said Professor Brönnimann. “Frequent volcanic eruptions caused an actual gear shift in the global climate system.”

Commenting on the Nature finding, Mark Maslin, a climatologist at University College London, said: “Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has changed synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the planet has warmed. This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.

“This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climates of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.” – Climate News Network

Hot future prompts new ideas for cool cities

Higher temperatures must mean more energy just to cool cities – which means even more heat. But ingenuity is already proposing answers.

LONDON, 15 August, 2019 − The world could need a quarter more energy by 2050, to cool cities and survive the global heating expected by then. And that assumes that nations will have taken steps to control greenhouse gas emissions and that the rise in temperature will be moderate.

If, on the other hand, the world goes on burning fossil fuels under the notorious “business as usual” scenario, then according to new research the people of the planet could demand up to 58% more energy, just to drive the extra air conditioning and refrigeration in ever more frequent and ever more intense extremes of heat.

The latest study, by researchers based in Boston, Massachusetts and Venice in Italy, helps to settle one of the more intricate questions that accompany climate projections and energy demand: yes, there will be more people and bigger cities which demand more power anyway, and yes, warm zones will get hotter and demand more expense on keeping cool. But chilly and temperate nations will enjoy milder winters and spend less on staying warm. Which wins?

The new paper, in the journal Nature Communications, either settles the matter or provides fellow scientists with a methodology and a set of results to examine more closely.

Risky faster heating

A warmer world will also be vastly more energy-expensive. And if nations invest in coal, oil or natural gas to provide the extra electricity to provide the air-conditioning, drive the electric fans and refrigerate food and medical supplies, then global heating would accelerate to ever more dangerous levels.

“At this point, we don’t know. To cool my house, I could buy a bigger air-conditioner. Or if higher demand makes electricity more expensive, I could choose to open my window or run a fan,” said Ian Sue Wing, an earth and environment scientist at Boston University, who led the study.

“We could use coal or we could use renewable sources, and those two choices mean very different things for our future. With coal, it will mean more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what keeps me up at night.”

By 2050, there could be between 8.4bn and 10bn people on the planet. Gross domestic product per person (an economist’s measure of income and spending) could have all but doubled or even in some places more than trebled. Tropical and mid-latitude zones could, if warming is only moderate, experience as many as an extra 50 uncomfortably hot days each year. If the warming is vigorous, the number could soar to 75.

“We could use coal or we could use renewable sources. With coal, it will mean more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what keeps me up at night”

Researchers have warned, consistently and repeatedly, that even a modest rise in average planetary temperatures will take the form of longer and more intense heat waves. By 2100 three out of four people on the planet could be exposed to heat extremes, and those most at hazard will be living in the tropical and subtropical megacities.

Extremes of heat can kill – one group has already identified 27 ways in which to die of rising temperatures – and scientists began warning years ago that ever more needed investment in air-conditioning equipment would only make energy demand, and perhaps greenhouse gas emissions, worse, while also contributing to ever greater outdoor temperatures.

So researchers have been looking at other approaches. The puzzle has already tested the levels of ingenuity and fresh thinking in the world’s energy laboratories. Researchers have cheerfully proposed reflector roofs that could send 97% of the sunlight back into space.

They have explored nature’s answer to the unforgiving sun: more trees in cities could take temperatures down by as much as 5°C and even make cities wealthier and healthier. And already this month, scientists and engineers have suggested two new ways to address the challenge of the overheating cities.

One US team at the University of Buffalo, working with the King Abdullah University in Saudi Arabia, has devised an inexpensive polymer-aluminium film that keeps itself cool, packed in a specially designed solar shelter. The film absorbs heat from the air and converts it to thermal radiation that can be beamed back into space.

Deep cuts possible

The researchers report, in the journal Nature Sustainability, that in the laboratory temperatures could be lowered by up to 11°C. On a clear, sunny day in New York state, they achieved outdoor all-day temperature reductions of 2°C to 9°C.

This exercise in entirely passive cooling – no electricity, just rooftop boxes – is in its infancy. But there are other approaches to the “heat island effect” that already makes modern cities uncomfortable.

Researchers at the University of Rutgers in the US simply looked at the ground beneath their feet. Pavement and road surfaces made of concrete or asphalt cover 30% of most cities and in high summer these surfaces can reach 60°C.

So, the Rutgers engineers report in the Journal of Cleaner Production,  roads could be made of permeable concrete, through which water could drain. It might give off more heat on sunny days, but after rainfall the water could run through, and evaporate through the pores, to reduce pavement heat by up to 30%.

And in addition, their concrete treated with fly ash and steel slag would make a huge difference to stormwater management and reduce the risk of urban flash floods. − Climate News Network

Higher temperatures must mean more energy just to cool cities – which means even more heat. But ingenuity is already proposing answers.

LONDON, 15 August, 2019 − The world could need a quarter more energy by 2050, to cool cities and survive the global heating expected by then. And that assumes that nations will have taken steps to control greenhouse gas emissions and that the rise in temperature will be moderate.

If, on the other hand, the world goes on burning fossil fuels under the notorious “business as usual” scenario, then according to new research the people of the planet could demand up to 58% more energy, just to drive the extra air conditioning and refrigeration in ever more frequent and ever more intense extremes of heat.

The latest study, by researchers based in Boston, Massachusetts and Venice in Italy, helps to settle one of the more intricate questions that accompany climate projections and energy demand: yes, there will be more people and bigger cities which demand more power anyway, and yes, warm zones will get hotter and demand more expense on keeping cool. But chilly and temperate nations will enjoy milder winters and spend less on staying warm. Which wins?

The new paper, in the journal Nature Communications, either settles the matter or provides fellow scientists with a methodology and a set of results to examine more closely.

Risky faster heating

A warmer world will also be vastly more energy-expensive. And if nations invest in coal, oil or natural gas to provide the extra electricity to provide the air-conditioning, drive the electric fans and refrigerate food and medical supplies, then global heating would accelerate to ever more dangerous levels.

“At this point, we don’t know. To cool my house, I could buy a bigger air-conditioner. Or if higher demand makes electricity more expensive, I could choose to open my window or run a fan,” said Ian Sue Wing, an earth and environment scientist at Boston University, who led the study.

“We could use coal or we could use renewable sources, and those two choices mean very different things for our future. With coal, it will mean more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what keeps me up at night.”

By 2050, there could be between 8.4bn and 10bn people on the planet. Gross domestic product per person (an economist’s measure of income and spending) could have all but doubled or even in some places more than trebled. Tropical and mid-latitude zones could, if warming is only moderate, experience as many as an extra 50 uncomfortably hot days each year. If the warming is vigorous, the number could soar to 75.

“We could use coal or we could use renewable sources. With coal, it will mean more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what keeps me up at night”

Researchers have warned, consistently and repeatedly, that even a modest rise in average planetary temperatures will take the form of longer and more intense heat waves. By 2100 three out of four people on the planet could be exposed to heat extremes, and those most at hazard will be living in the tropical and subtropical megacities.

Extremes of heat can kill – one group has already identified 27 ways in which to die of rising temperatures – and scientists began warning years ago that ever more needed investment in air-conditioning equipment would only make energy demand, and perhaps greenhouse gas emissions, worse, while also contributing to ever greater outdoor temperatures.

So researchers have been looking at other approaches. The puzzle has already tested the levels of ingenuity and fresh thinking in the world’s energy laboratories. Researchers have cheerfully proposed reflector roofs that could send 97% of the sunlight back into space.

They have explored nature’s answer to the unforgiving sun: more trees in cities could take temperatures down by as much as 5°C and even make cities wealthier and healthier. And already this month, scientists and engineers have suggested two new ways to address the challenge of the overheating cities.

One US team at the University of Buffalo, working with the King Abdullah University in Saudi Arabia, has devised an inexpensive polymer-aluminium film that keeps itself cool, packed in a specially designed solar shelter. The film absorbs heat from the air and converts it to thermal radiation that can be beamed back into space.

Deep cuts possible

The researchers report, in the journal Nature Sustainability, that in the laboratory temperatures could be lowered by up to 11°C. On a clear, sunny day in New York state, they achieved outdoor all-day temperature reductions of 2°C to 9°C.

This exercise in entirely passive cooling – no electricity, just rooftop boxes – is in its infancy. But there are other approaches to the “heat island effect” that already makes modern cities uncomfortable.

Researchers at the University of Rutgers in the US simply looked at the ground beneath their feet. Pavement and road surfaces made of concrete or asphalt cover 30% of most cities and in high summer these surfaces can reach 60°C.

So, the Rutgers engineers report in the Journal of Cleaner Production,  roads could be made of permeable concrete, through which water could drain. It might give off more heat on sunny days, but after rainfall the water could run through, and evaporate through the pores, to reduce pavement heat by up to 30%.

And in addition, their concrete treated with fly ash and steel slag would make a huge difference to stormwater management and reduce the risk of urban flash floods. − Climate News Network

Fracking’s methane leaks drive climate heat

One likely cause of the inexorable rise in global heat is fracking’s methane leaks from the shale gas industry.

LONDON, 14 August, 2019 − An atmospheric methane rise that will speed up global temperature rise is probably being caused mainly by the gas industry’s fracking methane leaks in North America, a new study says.

The analysis, confirming environmentalists’ worst fears about fracking, is a serious blow to the industry, which claims the gas it produces is cleaner than coal and is needed in the interim before renewables can replace fossil fuels.

The study is the work of a scientist from Cornell University in the US who has examined the rapid rise in methane concentrations in the atmosphere since 2008. He has found that the gas’s carbon composition has changed.

His research suggests that methane from biological sources such as cows and bogs has less carbon-13 relative to carbon-12 (denoting the weight of the carbon atom at the centre of the methane molecule) than does methane from conventional natural gas and other fossil fuels such as coal.

The conclusion is that the process of forcing chemicals and water into rock to release gas – the process known as fracking – causes the increased methane emissions. The fracking industry has boomed, and the “signature” of the carbon in the atmosphere points directly to that as the cause.

“If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly. It’s the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming”

The scientist, Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, said: “This recent increase in methane is massive. It’s globally significant. It’s contributed to some of the increase in global warming we’ve seen, and shale gas is a major player.” His study is published in Biogeosciences, a journal of the European Geosciences Union.

Professor Howarth said about two thirds of all new gas production over the last decade had been shale gas from the US and Canada. Previous studies had concluded erroneously that biological sources were the cause of rising methane, but the analysis of the gas showed it came from fracking.

Atmospheric methane levels rose during the last two decades of the 20th century but then levelled off for about a decade. Then they increased dramatically from 2008 to 2014, from about 570 teragrams (570 billion tonnes) annually to about 595 teragrams, because of global human-caused methane emissions in the last 11 years.

Methane is an intense but short-lived contributor to climate change. It traps heat in the atmosphere far more efficiently than carbon dioxide can, but over a much shorter period, because it breaks down quickly and can disperse completely in a few years.

Industry hopes dashed

Professor Howarth says: “If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly, compared to carbon dioxide. It’s the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming.”

The findings will be a serious blow to the hopes of the fracking industry to expand into Europe and other parts of the world. Already there is considerable resistance to fracking, and it has been banned in some EU countries, including France, Germany and Ireland.

But others − including the United Kingdom, which has recently declared a climate emergency − have encouraged fracking, despite growing public opposition.

The fact that fracking is now suspected of causing climate change to accelerate will make it extremely hard for governments to continue to encourage the industry. − Climate News Network

One likely cause of the inexorable rise in global heat is fracking’s methane leaks from the shale gas industry.

LONDON, 14 August, 2019 − An atmospheric methane rise that will speed up global temperature rise is probably being caused mainly by the gas industry’s fracking methane leaks in North America, a new study says.

The analysis, confirming environmentalists’ worst fears about fracking, is a serious blow to the industry, which claims the gas it produces is cleaner than coal and is needed in the interim before renewables can replace fossil fuels.

The study is the work of a scientist from Cornell University in the US who has examined the rapid rise in methane concentrations in the atmosphere since 2008. He has found that the gas’s carbon composition has changed.

His research suggests that methane from biological sources such as cows and bogs has less carbon-13 relative to carbon-12 (denoting the weight of the carbon atom at the centre of the methane molecule) than does methane from conventional natural gas and other fossil fuels such as coal.

The conclusion is that the process of forcing chemicals and water into rock to release gas – the process known as fracking – causes the increased methane emissions. The fracking industry has boomed, and the “signature” of the carbon in the atmosphere points directly to that as the cause.

“If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly. It’s the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming”

The scientist, Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell, said: “This recent increase in methane is massive. It’s globally significant. It’s contributed to some of the increase in global warming we’ve seen, and shale gas is a major player.” His study is published in Biogeosciences, a journal of the European Geosciences Union.

Professor Howarth said about two thirds of all new gas production over the last decade had been shale gas from the US and Canada. Previous studies had concluded erroneously that biological sources were the cause of rising methane, but the analysis of the gas showed it came from fracking.

Atmospheric methane levels rose during the last two decades of the 20th century but then levelled off for about a decade. Then they increased dramatically from 2008 to 2014, from about 570 teragrams (570 billion tonnes) annually to about 595 teragrams, because of global human-caused methane emissions in the last 11 years.

Methane is an intense but short-lived contributor to climate change. It traps heat in the atmosphere far more efficiently than carbon dioxide can, but over a much shorter period, because it breaks down quickly and can disperse completely in a few years.

Industry hopes dashed

Professor Howarth says: “If we can stop pouring methane into the atmosphere, it will dissipate. It goes away pretty quickly, compared to carbon dioxide. It’s the low-hanging fruit to slow global warming.”

The findings will be a serious blow to the hopes of the fracking industry to expand into Europe and other parts of the world. Already there is considerable resistance to fracking, and it has been banned in some EU countries, including France, Germany and Ireland.

But others − including the United Kingdom, which has recently declared a climate emergency − have encouraged fracking, despite growing public opposition.

The fact that fracking is now suspected of causing climate change to accelerate will make it extremely hard for governments to continue to encourage the industry. − Climate News Network

Artificial snow could save world’s coasts

In theory, artificial snow could save the ice caps and limit sea level rise. But rescuing civilisation this way would sacrifice Antarctica.

LONDON, 2 August, 2019 − German scientists have proposed a startling new way of slowing sea level rise and saving New York, Shanghai, Amsterdam and Miami from 3.3 metres of ocean flooding − by using artificial snow.

They suggest the rising seas could be halted by turning West Antarctica, one of the last undisturbed places on Earth, into an industrial snow complex, complete with a sophisticated distribution system.

An estimated 12,000 high-performance wind turbines could be used to generate the 145 Gigawatts of power (one Gigawatt supplies the energy for about 750,000 US homes) needed to lift Antarctic ocean water to heights of, on average, 640 metres, heat it, desalinate it and then spray it over 52,000 square kilometres of the West Antarctic ice sheet in the form of artificial snow, at the rate of several hundred billion tonnes a year, for decades.

Such action could slow or halt the apparently-inevitable collapse of the ice sheet: were this to melt entirely – and right now it is melting at the rate of 361 billion tonnes a year – the world’s oceans would rise by 3.3 metres.

“The fundamental trade-off is whether we as humanity want to sacrifice Antarctica to save the currently inhabited coastal regions and cultural heritage that we have built and are building on our shores,” said Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“The apparent absurdity of the endeavour to let it snow in Antarctica to stop an ice instability reflects the breathtaking dimension of the sea level problem”

“It is about global metropolises, from New York to Shanghai, which in the long term will be below sea level if nothing is done. The West Antarctic ice sheet is one of the tipping elements in our climate system. Ice loss is accelerating and might not stop until the West Antarctic ice sheet is practically gone.”

The Potsdam scientists report in the journal Science Advances that their simulations of ice loss from West Antarctica and the measures needed to halt such loss are not an alternative to other steps. Their calculations would be valid “only under a simultaneous drastic reduction” of the global carbon dioxide emissions that drive global heating, and sea level rise, in the first place.

That is, the world would need to abandon fossil fuels, agree to switch to renewable energy, and then use that renewable energy to in effect destroy the Antarctic’s unique ecosystem but save the great cities of the world from the advancing waves later in this millennium.

The researchers acknowledge that the solution is somewhere between impractical and impossible (in their words, it would have to be undertaken “under the difficult circumstances of the Antarctic climate”). But the mere fact that they could write such a proposal is itself an indicator of the accelerating seriousness of the planetary predicament.

In Paris in 2015, 195 nations agreed to take steps to limit global temperature rise to “well below” 2°C above the level that obtained for most of human history. Such steps for the most part have yet to be taken.

3°C rise possible

Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, the Arctic ice cap is diminishing, the oceans are warming and the loss of ice in Antarctica is increasing.

By 2100, on present trends, the world will be at least 3°C above the historic average.

“The apparent absurdity of the endeavour to let it snow in Antarctica to stop an ice instability reflects the breathtaking dimension of the sea level problem,” Professor Levermann said.

“Yet as scientists we feel it is our duty to inform society about each and every potential option to counter the problems ahead.

“As unbelievable as it might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort, too.” − Climate News Network

In theory, artificial snow could save the ice caps and limit sea level rise. But rescuing civilisation this way would sacrifice Antarctica.

LONDON, 2 August, 2019 − German scientists have proposed a startling new way of slowing sea level rise and saving New York, Shanghai, Amsterdam and Miami from 3.3 metres of ocean flooding − by using artificial snow.

They suggest the rising seas could be halted by turning West Antarctica, one of the last undisturbed places on Earth, into an industrial snow complex, complete with a sophisticated distribution system.

An estimated 12,000 high-performance wind turbines could be used to generate the 145 Gigawatts of power (one Gigawatt supplies the energy for about 750,000 US homes) needed to lift Antarctic ocean water to heights of, on average, 640 metres, heat it, desalinate it and then spray it over 52,000 square kilometres of the West Antarctic ice sheet in the form of artificial snow, at the rate of several hundred billion tonnes a year, for decades.

Such action could slow or halt the apparently-inevitable collapse of the ice sheet: were this to melt entirely – and right now it is melting at the rate of 361 billion tonnes a year – the world’s oceans would rise by 3.3 metres.

“The fundamental trade-off is whether we as humanity want to sacrifice Antarctica to save the currently inhabited coastal regions and cultural heritage that we have built and are building on our shores,” said Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“The apparent absurdity of the endeavour to let it snow in Antarctica to stop an ice instability reflects the breathtaking dimension of the sea level problem”

“It is about global metropolises, from New York to Shanghai, which in the long term will be below sea level if nothing is done. The West Antarctic ice sheet is one of the tipping elements in our climate system. Ice loss is accelerating and might not stop until the West Antarctic ice sheet is practically gone.”

The Potsdam scientists report in the journal Science Advances that their simulations of ice loss from West Antarctica and the measures needed to halt such loss are not an alternative to other steps. Their calculations would be valid “only under a simultaneous drastic reduction” of the global carbon dioxide emissions that drive global heating, and sea level rise, in the first place.

That is, the world would need to abandon fossil fuels, agree to switch to renewable energy, and then use that renewable energy to in effect destroy the Antarctic’s unique ecosystem but save the great cities of the world from the advancing waves later in this millennium.

The researchers acknowledge that the solution is somewhere between impractical and impossible (in their words, it would have to be undertaken “under the difficult circumstances of the Antarctic climate”). But the mere fact that they could write such a proposal is itself an indicator of the accelerating seriousness of the planetary predicament.

In Paris in 2015, 195 nations agreed to take steps to limit global temperature rise to “well below” 2°C above the level that obtained for most of human history. Such steps for the most part have yet to be taken.

3°C rise possible

Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, the Arctic ice cap is diminishing, the oceans are warming and the loss of ice in Antarctica is increasing.

By 2100, on present trends, the world will be at least 3°C above the historic average.

“The apparent absurdity of the endeavour to let it snow in Antarctica to stop an ice instability reflects the breathtaking dimension of the sea level problem,” Professor Levermann said.

“Yet as scientists we feel it is our duty to inform society about each and every potential option to counter the problems ahead.

“As unbelievable as it might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort, too.” − Climate News Network

Only a climate revolution can cool the world

An academic book on fossil fuel consumption reaches a startling conclusion: only a climate revolution can force governments to act to stop the planet overheating.

LONDON, 31 July, 2019 − Governments have completely failed to make progress in tackling the planetary emergency, and a climate revolution is the sole hope that they will do so.

This sounds like a sound bite from Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who is inspiring schoolchildren worldwide to go on strike, or a slogan from Extinction Rebellion, which has been disrupting city life in the UK and elsewhere to secure an urgent government response to the climate emergency.

Both campaigns might agree with the statement, but it is in fact from a scholarly book, Burning Up, A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, a detailed study into the burning of fossil fuels since 1950.  It looks at fuel consumption in individual countries but also at the political forces that have driven and still drive the ever-growing inferno of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, across the world.

The book illustrates the reasons behind the rather frightening fact that since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, despite many promises and warnings, governments have failed to take decisive action on climate change and in fact have made it decidedly worse by continuing to subsidise fossil fuels more than renewables.

Simon Pirani, a senior research fellow at the UK’s Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, takes the reader through an exhaustive examination of fossil fuel consumption and the driving forces behind it.  One point he makes is that governments, particularly in the US, have contrived to kill off the use of buses and trains and instead promoted private cars.

 

And even if people wanted a choice, they don’t have the chance to make one, so we have to contribute to the increased use of fossil fuels if we want to lead a normal life. Producing many consumer goods and nearly all food depends on fossil fuels. Agriculture depends on oil-based fertiliser; and buying cars, washing machines and fridges leaves customers willy-nilly indirectly consuming fossil fuels.

Pirani is also scathing about the rich world’s reaction to the sort of crisis that is here already and will become more commonplace in a warming world.  He gives the example of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, when there was indifference from the government to the poor and disadvantaged who were most affected – an attitude mirrored across the world in subsequent disasters, especially in developing countries.

Climate change is already affecting swathes of Africa, causing crop failures and famine – again largely ignored by the rich world, which he identifies as the main cause of climate change, continues to cause it, but refuses to take responsibility for its consequences.

His third example is our attitude to refugees. He admits that most of the migrants converging now on Europe and the US are on the move because of wars or political oppression, but says that when millions are forced to migrate by climate change the pattern has already been set.

“There is little hope of world leaders taking the action required to keep the world temperature from increasing more than 2°C, let alone 1.5°C”

The attitude of governments in the rich world, increasingly in the EU but already in the US, is to build walls to keep them out rather than tackle the problem at source.

Altogether it is a fascinating and disturbing analysis of how the influence of the fossil fuel industry and its short-term financial advantage has come to outweigh the scientific evidence and the welfare of humanity in the minds of politicians. It certainly demonstrates why there is little hope of world leaders taking the action required to keep the world temperature from increasing more than 2°C, let alone 1.5°C.

However, Dr Pirani claims that ordinary people can have an impact on governments.  He points to the example of China where the government, fearful of the reaction of its people to the effects of air pollution on its children’s health, has taken decisive action to reduce the damage. India is currently going through the same process.

His book was written and with the publisher before the rise of Extinction Rebellion and the school strikes, but perhaps that is exactly the sort of citizen action he would advocate.

His conclusion is that unless ordinary people reject the continued dominance of the fossil fuel industry and force governments to act by continued acts of civil disobedience. there is no hope of keeping the world temperature below a dangerous level. − Climate News Network

* * * * *

Burning Up. A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, Simon Pirani, Pluto Press, London

An academic book on fossil fuel consumption reaches a startling conclusion: only a climate revolution can force governments to act to stop the planet overheating.

LONDON, 31 July, 2019 − Governments have completely failed to make progress in tackling the planetary emergency, and a climate revolution is the sole hope that they will do so.

This sounds like a sound bite from Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist who is inspiring schoolchildren worldwide to go on strike, or a slogan from Extinction Rebellion, which has been disrupting city life in the UK and elsewhere to secure an urgent government response to the climate emergency.

Both campaigns might agree with the statement, but it is in fact from a scholarly book, Burning Up, A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, a detailed study into the burning of fossil fuels since 1950.  It looks at fuel consumption in individual countries but also at the political forces that have driven and still drive the ever-growing inferno of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, across the world.

The book illustrates the reasons behind the rather frightening fact that since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, despite many promises and warnings, governments have failed to take decisive action on climate change and in fact have made it decidedly worse by continuing to subsidise fossil fuels more than renewables.

Simon Pirani, a senior research fellow at the UK’s Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, takes the reader through an exhaustive examination of fossil fuel consumption and the driving forces behind it.  One point he makes is that governments, particularly in the US, have contrived to kill off the use of buses and trains and instead promoted private cars.

 

And even if people wanted a choice, they don’t have the chance to make one, so we have to contribute to the increased use of fossil fuels if we want to lead a normal life. Producing many consumer goods and nearly all food depends on fossil fuels. Agriculture depends on oil-based fertiliser; and buying cars, washing machines and fridges leaves customers willy-nilly indirectly consuming fossil fuels.

Pirani is also scathing about the rich world’s reaction to the sort of crisis that is here already and will become more commonplace in a warming world.  He gives the example of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, when there was indifference from the government to the poor and disadvantaged who were most affected – an attitude mirrored across the world in subsequent disasters, especially in developing countries.

Climate change is already affecting swathes of Africa, causing crop failures and famine – again largely ignored by the rich world, which he identifies as the main cause of climate change, continues to cause it, but refuses to take responsibility for its consequences.

His third example is our attitude to refugees. He admits that most of the migrants converging now on Europe and the US are on the move because of wars or political oppression, but says that when millions are forced to migrate by climate change the pattern has already been set.

“There is little hope of world leaders taking the action required to keep the world temperature from increasing more than 2°C, let alone 1.5°C”

The attitude of governments in the rich world, increasingly in the EU but already in the US, is to build walls to keep them out rather than tackle the problem at source.

Altogether it is a fascinating and disturbing analysis of how the influence of the fossil fuel industry and its short-term financial advantage has come to outweigh the scientific evidence and the welfare of humanity in the minds of politicians. It certainly demonstrates why there is little hope of world leaders taking the action required to keep the world temperature from increasing more than 2°C, let alone 1.5°C.

However, Dr Pirani claims that ordinary people can have an impact on governments.  He points to the example of China where the government, fearful of the reaction of its people to the effects of air pollution on its children’s health, has taken decisive action to reduce the damage. India is currently going through the same process.

His book was written and with the publisher before the rise of Extinction Rebellion and the school strikes, but perhaps that is exactly the sort of citizen action he would advocate.

His conclusion is that unless ordinary people reject the continued dominance of the fossil fuel industry and force governments to act by continued acts of civil disobedience. there is no hope of keeping the world temperature below a dangerous level. − Climate News Network

* * * * *

Burning Up. A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, Simon Pirani, Pluto Press, London

Elephants’ diets help forests to thrive

Elephants may throw their weight around, but they pay their dues to the environment: they help the great forests store ever more carbon.

LONDON, 30 July, 2019 – Like humans, all social animals exploit, disturb and alter their natural environment. Biologists have just identified at least one species, elephants, that – in the course of bulldozing their way through the undergrowth and destroying young trees – actually make the forest more efficient at storing carbon and thus containing global heating.

The African forest elephant Loxodonta cyclotis browses upon and uproots young trees with stems smaller than 30cms and deposits the digested foliage as fertiliser, rich in seeds for the next generation of saplings.

Researchers from Italy, France, Brazil and the US report in the journal Nature Geoscience that this simple act – performed by perhaps one elephant in one square kilometre of forest – actually adds to the biomass locked in the remaining timber at the rate of by between 26 and 60 tonnes per hectare.

And if these ancient mega-herbivores were not crashing through the forest, consuming young trees, the forest would be home to 7% less biomass in the form of dense timber.

Forest elephants, the same scientists say, are rapidly declining in numbers. The researchers had been studying the species for years, and devised a mathematical model of their impact on the environment that supported them.

“Humanity is doing its best to rid the planet of elephants as quickly as it can. Forest elephants are facing extinction. All of their positive effect on carbon and their roles as forest gardeners and engineers will be lost”

Humans convert forest to farmland and increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that fuel global heating and the climate emergency. Forest elephants, on the other hand, simply alter the composition of the forest and make their environment a little cooler.

They do so by clearing away the fast-growing species to make more space for trees slower to climb towards the sunlight but with timber of higher density.

“Lo and behold, as we look at numbers of elephants in a forest and we look at the composition of forest over time, we find that the proportion of trees with high-density wood is higher in forests with elephants,” said Stephen Blake of St Louis University in the US, one of the authors.

“The simulation found that the slow-growing plant species survive better when elephants are present. These species aren’t eaten by elephants and, over time, the forest becomes dominated by these slow-growing species. Wood (lignin) has a carbon backbone, meaning it has a large number of carbon molecules in it.

“Slow-growing high wood-density species contain more carbon molecules per unit volume than fast-growing low wood-density species. As the elephants ‘thin’ the forest, they increase the number of slow-growing trees and the forest is capable of storing more carbon.”

Support for Gaia

The finding is consistent with the Gaia theory of earth system science: that life unconsciously but collectively tends to work in ways that keep the planet’s atmosphere stable and the planetary temperatures within comfortable boundaries.

So far humans are the most conspicuous exception to this rule. Biologists have wondered about the contribution of the mega-herbivores: in this one case, it seems that forest elephants are good for the forest and good for climate control.

The finding is also consistent with an argument put by conservationists, biologists and climate scientists: the healthiest and most efficient forests at absorbing atmospheric carbon are those that are home to the richest levels of biodiversity – that is, forests that remain natural wilderness.

Biologists and conservationists talk a lot about “ecosystem services” and “natural capital”: that is, the contribution of the natural world,  directly or indirectly, to human wealth. The researchers put a cash value on the carbon contribution of the African forest elephants: they perform a carbon storage service of $43 bn.

“The sad reality is that humanity is doing its best to rid the planet of elephants as quickly as it can,” said Dr Blake. “Forest elephants are rapidly declining and facing extinction. From a climate perspective, all of their positive effect on carbon and their myriad other ecological roles as forest gardeners and engineers will be lost.” – Climate News Network

Elephants may throw their weight around, but they pay their dues to the environment: they help the great forests store ever more carbon.

LONDON, 30 July, 2019 – Like humans, all social animals exploit, disturb and alter their natural environment. Biologists have just identified at least one species, elephants, that – in the course of bulldozing their way through the undergrowth and destroying young trees – actually make the forest more efficient at storing carbon and thus containing global heating.

The African forest elephant Loxodonta cyclotis browses upon and uproots young trees with stems smaller than 30cms and deposits the digested foliage as fertiliser, rich in seeds for the next generation of saplings.

Researchers from Italy, France, Brazil and the US report in the journal Nature Geoscience that this simple act – performed by perhaps one elephant in one square kilometre of forest – actually adds to the biomass locked in the remaining timber at the rate of by between 26 and 60 tonnes per hectare.

And if these ancient mega-herbivores were not crashing through the forest, consuming young trees, the forest would be home to 7% less biomass in the form of dense timber.

Forest elephants, the same scientists say, are rapidly declining in numbers. The researchers had been studying the species for years, and devised a mathematical model of their impact on the environment that supported them.

“Humanity is doing its best to rid the planet of elephants as quickly as it can. Forest elephants are facing extinction. All of their positive effect on carbon and their roles as forest gardeners and engineers will be lost”

Humans convert forest to farmland and increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that fuel global heating and the climate emergency. Forest elephants, on the other hand, simply alter the composition of the forest and make their environment a little cooler.

They do so by clearing away the fast-growing species to make more space for trees slower to climb towards the sunlight but with timber of higher density.

“Lo and behold, as we look at numbers of elephants in a forest and we look at the composition of forest over time, we find that the proportion of trees with high-density wood is higher in forests with elephants,” said Stephen Blake of St Louis University in the US, one of the authors.

“The simulation found that the slow-growing plant species survive better when elephants are present. These species aren’t eaten by elephants and, over time, the forest becomes dominated by these slow-growing species. Wood (lignin) has a carbon backbone, meaning it has a large number of carbon molecules in it.

“Slow-growing high wood-density species contain more carbon molecules per unit volume than fast-growing low wood-density species. As the elephants ‘thin’ the forest, they increase the number of slow-growing trees and the forest is capable of storing more carbon.”

Support for Gaia

The finding is consistent with the Gaia theory of earth system science: that life unconsciously but collectively tends to work in ways that keep the planet’s atmosphere stable and the planetary temperatures within comfortable boundaries.

So far humans are the most conspicuous exception to this rule. Biologists have wondered about the contribution of the mega-herbivores: in this one case, it seems that forest elephants are good for the forest and good for climate control.

The finding is also consistent with an argument put by conservationists, biologists and climate scientists: the healthiest and most efficient forests at absorbing atmospheric carbon are those that are home to the richest levels of biodiversity – that is, forests that remain natural wilderness.

Biologists and conservationists talk a lot about “ecosystem services” and “natural capital”: that is, the contribution of the natural world,  directly or indirectly, to human wealth. The researchers put a cash value on the carbon contribution of the African forest elephants: they perform a carbon storage service of $43 bn.

“The sad reality is that humanity is doing its best to rid the planet of elephants as quickly as it can,” said Dr Blake. “Forest elephants are rapidly declining and facing extinction. From a climate perspective, all of their positive effect on carbon and their myriad other ecological roles as forest gardeners and engineers will be lost.” – Climate News Network

The views we’ll lose with climate change

At Europe’s peak holiday season, a solar light company is showing tourists the views we’ll lose with climate change.

LONDON, 25 July, 2019 − Staff at a British company became so frustrated by the many adults still denying the scientific evidence of global warming that they are using graphic images of the effects on several famous tourist sites to show people the views we’ll lose.

The prediction from scientists that the city of Venice and London’s world-famous Big Ben are among the treasures that will be overwhelmed by flooding from heavy rains and sea level rise has led those who work at The Solar Centre to produce current and future pictures of these tourist magnets to ram home their point.

They have also created similar before-and-after images of the English Lake District, which will begin to dry up because of climate change, and the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where corals are already being wiped out and will vanish entirely under the worst-case scenario.

In the past tabloid newspapers have got into trouble for mocking up photographs of what will happen under rising temperatures, but the campaigners at The Solar Centre insist that their images recreate the scientific evidence.

They have used evidence from C40 Cities, Natural England, and National Geographic to show what changing weather patterns will do to some of the most famous sites in the world.

The UK: London’s Big Ben

 

How badly affected these places are and how quickly they will deteriorate depends on the efforts made now to reduce emissions to the atmosphere. But all of them could vanish within the lifetime of children now at primary school.

Hannah Buckley, from the company, said: “Our aim in these pictures is to raise further awareness of the damage we are inflicting on ourselves. We believe that people still choose to ignore the facts as they cannot see the damage today.

“Many people are choosing to go on holiday at this time of year and we picked out some of the tourist destinations, both in the UK and abroad, that are most at risk from climate change.

“Consistently climate scientists talk of rising sea levels and melting glaciers, whilst the reality is that people don’t think this will affect them as they don’t live near the sea or near a glacier.

England’s Lake District

“Action is needed to reduce the on-going sense of apathy towards climate change. Hence, here at The Solar Centre our climate awareness team decided to visualise what popular tourist destinations would look like in accordance with current research, using Photoshop. By visualising the effect on destinations that are immediately recognisable to everyone, we hope that people will start to take notice before it’s too late.”

Because London is one of the most popular destinations for tourists visiting the UK, and Big Ben one of its most iconic buildings, the company decided to show how climate change could threaten the 160-year-old clock.

Research has suggested climate change will cause storm surges from the North Sea coinciding with river flooding from the Thames. This would result in mass flooding of the city of London and create an abundance of surface water. Even walking across the Thames by Westminster Bridge could be problematic.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef system, located off Australia’s east coast. It attracts snorkelers and divers, and more importantly is home to many species of fish and other marine life. Climate change is already having a huge impact on the reef.

Italy: St Mark’s Square, Venice

Rising sea temperatures are the main reason, causing the coral to bleach and ultimately killing it. This trend is likely to increase, and soon there could be almost no marine life left in what is currently one of Australia’s world heritage sites.

Venice is sometimes called the floating city, but soon this could be the sinking city. It is already at constant threat from flooding because of its low-lying foundations. Any time there is heavy rain combined with high tides, seawater is driven into the city. Part could soon lie partly under water.

The Lake District – a popular holiday destination in north-west England – is famed for its mountain views and lakes. It faces multiple threats from climate change. Species likely to decline include the mountain ringlet butterfly. But there will be an increase in invasive species like pygmy weeds and Japanese knotweeds – not the type of plants you want in your back garden

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Heavy rainfall will cause erosion, damaging footbridges and footpaths, which will increase the amount of soil in the lakes. In the summer months, lake levels will also fall drastically, altering cherished views. – Climate News Network

* * * * *

All images courtesy of The Solar Centre

At Europe’s peak holiday season, a solar light company is showing tourists the views we’ll lose with climate change.

LONDON, 25 July, 2019 − Staff at a British company became so frustrated by the many adults still denying the scientific evidence of global warming that they are using graphic images of the effects on several famous tourist sites to show people the views we’ll lose.

The prediction from scientists that the city of Venice and London’s world-famous Big Ben are among the treasures that will be overwhelmed by flooding from heavy rains and sea level rise has led those who work at The Solar Centre to produce current and future pictures of these tourist magnets to ram home their point.

They have also created similar before-and-after images of the English Lake District, which will begin to dry up because of climate change, and the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where corals are already being wiped out and will vanish entirely under the worst-case scenario.

In the past tabloid newspapers have got into trouble for mocking up photographs of what will happen under rising temperatures, but the campaigners at The Solar Centre insist that their images recreate the scientific evidence.

They have used evidence from C40 Cities, Natural England, and National Geographic to show what changing weather patterns will do to some of the most famous sites in the world.

The UK: London’s Big Ben

 

How badly affected these places are and how quickly they will deteriorate depends on the efforts made now to reduce emissions to the atmosphere. But all of them could vanish within the lifetime of children now at primary school.

Hannah Buckley, from the company, said: “Our aim in these pictures is to raise further awareness of the damage we are inflicting on ourselves. We believe that people still choose to ignore the facts as they cannot see the damage today.

“Many people are choosing to go on holiday at this time of year and we picked out some of the tourist destinations, both in the UK and abroad, that are most at risk from climate change.

“Consistently climate scientists talk of rising sea levels and melting glaciers, whilst the reality is that people don’t think this will affect them as they don’t live near the sea or near a glacier.

England’s Lake District

“Action is needed to reduce the on-going sense of apathy towards climate change. Hence, here at The Solar Centre our climate awareness team decided to visualise what popular tourist destinations would look like in accordance with current research, using Photoshop. By visualising the effect on destinations that are immediately recognisable to everyone, we hope that people will start to take notice before it’s too late.”

Because London is one of the most popular destinations for tourists visiting the UK, and Big Ben one of its most iconic buildings, the company decided to show how climate change could threaten the 160-year-old clock.

Research has suggested climate change will cause storm surges from the North Sea coinciding with river flooding from the Thames. This would result in mass flooding of the city of London and create an abundance of surface water. Even walking across the Thames by Westminster Bridge could be problematic.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef system, located off Australia’s east coast. It attracts snorkelers and divers, and more importantly is home to many species of fish and other marine life. Climate change is already having a huge impact on the reef.

Italy: St Mark’s Square, Venice

Rising sea temperatures are the main reason, causing the coral to bleach and ultimately killing it. This trend is likely to increase, and soon there could be almost no marine life left in what is currently one of Australia’s world heritage sites.

Venice is sometimes called the floating city, but soon this could be the sinking city. It is already at constant threat from flooding because of its low-lying foundations. Any time there is heavy rain combined with high tides, seawater is driven into the city. Part could soon lie partly under water.

The Lake District – a popular holiday destination in north-west England – is famed for its mountain views and lakes. It faces multiple threats from climate change. Species likely to decline include the mountain ringlet butterfly. But there will be an increase in invasive species like pygmy weeds and Japanese knotweeds – not the type of plants you want in your back garden

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Heavy rainfall will cause erosion, damaging footbridges and footpaths, which will increase the amount of soil in the lakes. In the summer months, lake levels will also fall drastically, altering cherished views. – Climate News Network

* * * * *

All images courtesy of The Solar Centre

Acid oceans may trigger mass extinction

A stable carbon cycle means life goes on. Too much carbon could wipe out many species. And acid oceans could hold the key.

LONDON, 23 July, 2019 − Catastrophically widespread die-offs of many creatures could be inevitable if human activities continue to lead to more acid oceans, a new study suggests.

Mass extinction may not be an enduring mystery. Instead, it may be an intrinsic property of the carbon cycle. Once levels of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans reach a certain threshold, life undergoes dramatic and catastrophic change.

If a US mathematician is right – and his argument is based on statistical reasoning and the evidence in the marine sediments – then once the seas become too acidic for marine organisms to form carbonate shells, a cascade of extinction begins.

And, he warns, the “unusually strong but geologically brief duration” of manmade carbon dioxide increase in the oceans can be matched with slow but devastating extinctions in the past.

In short, human combustion of fossil fuels, combined with the destruction of the forests, could be building up to extinctions on a scale so colossal that they will be visible in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years from now.

After a certain point, the carbon cycle will take over and decide life’s direction. It happened many times long before the emergence of the human species, and it could happen again, according to a new study in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s a positive feedback. More carbon dioxide leads to more carbon dioxide. Is such a feedback enough to render the system unstable?”

“Once we are over the threshold, how we got there may not matter,” said Daniel Rothman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Once you get over it, you’re dealing with how the Earth works, and it goes on its own ride.”

Professor Rothman developed his hypothesis in 2017, in the journal Science Advances, after he analysed 31 changes in the makeup of carbonate sediments laid down over the last 542 million years, and connected five great extinctions not just with carbon dioxide levels but with the rate at which these increased.

He may be for the moment a lone voice in linking four of the five major extinctions with critical levels of oceanic acidification as a consequence of a carbon dioxide threshold. But climate scientists and palaeontologists have been looking at possible links between carbon and extinction for decades.

They have also repeatedly warned that humans are about to precipitate a sixth mass extinction, chiefly on the basis that we are destroying natural habitat and erasing the conditions in which millions of species – many of them still not identified – were once able to flourish.

The carbon factor

But climate change driven by ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – powered in turn by ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels – has also been a factor.

Whatever the risk to species or ecosystems, biologists and conservationists have warned that climate change driven by global heating can only make things worse.

And the more carefully researchers have looked at evidence of earlier catastrophic extinctions, the more bygone climate change has revealed itself. What caused the most dramatic and unequivocal of these – the “great dying” at the close of the Permian – is still hotly debated, but atmospheric conditions in one form or another have been repeatedly invoked and researchers have repeatedly drawn lessons for today.

But arguments so far have settled on whether such extinctions are a consequence of slow but inexorable episodes of volcanic discharge or some other geological shift.

Forget the trigger

Professor Rothman’s point is that the trigger itself may not be the important thing: what decides the fate of life on Earth is the level of carbon in the oceans and the rate at which it increases.

Once levels of acidification in the upper ocean reach a certain critical threshold, life is in for major disruption. If marine creatures cannot form shells, they are at risk. But even more dangerously, shells sink to the ocean floor, effectively removing carbon from circulation.

If there are fewer calcifying organisms, then less carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and oceans become even more acidic. A vicious cycle has begun.

“It’s a positive feedback,” Professor Rothman said. “More carbon dioxide leads to more carbon dioxide. The question, from a mathematical point of view is, is such a feedback enough to render the system unstable?”

Balance restored

In his mathematical model, once carbon levels reached a critical threshold, a cascade of positive feedbacks amplified the effect. Severe ocean acidification set in.

The effect was not permanent. After tens of thousands of years, the carbon cycle did slip back to equilibrium and life could evolve and adapt again.

Carbon is now entering the oceans at an unprecedented rate, over what – in geological terms – is a very brief timespan. If human-triggered greenhouse gas emissions cross a critical threshold, the consequences could be as severe as any of the previous mass extinctions.

“It’s difficult to know how things will end up, given what is happening today,” he said. “But we are probably close to a critical threshold. Any spike would reach its maximum after about 10,000 years. Hopefully, that would give us time to find a solution.” − Climate News Network

A stable carbon cycle means life goes on. Too much carbon could wipe out many species. And acid oceans could hold the key.

LONDON, 23 July, 2019 − Catastrophically widespread die-offs of many creatures could be inevitable if human activities continue to lead to more acid oceans, a new study suggests.

Mass extinction may not be an enduring mystery. Instead, it may be an intrinsic property of the carbon cycle. Once levels of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans reach a certain threshold, life undergoes dramatic and catastrophic change.

If a US mathematician is right – and his argument is based on statistical reasoning and the evidence in the marine sediments – then once the seas become too acidic for marine organisms to form carbonate shells, a cascade of extinction begins.

And, he warns, the “unusually strong but geologically brief duration” of manmade carbon dioxide increase in the oceans can be matched with slow but devastating extinctions in the past.

In short, human combustion of fossil fuels, combined with the destruction of the forests, could be building up to extinctions on a scale so colossal that they will be visible in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years from now.

After a certain point, the carbon cycle will take over and decide life’s direction. It happened many times long before the emergence of the human species, and it could happen again, according to a new study in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s a positive feedback. More carbon dioxide leads to more carbon dioxide. Is such a feedback enough to render the system unstable?”

“Once we are over the threshold, how we got there may not matter,” said Daniel Rothman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Once you get over it, you’re dealing with how the Earth works, and it goes on its own ride.”

Professor Rothman developed his hypothesis in 2017, in the journal Science Advances, after he analysed 31 changes in the makeup of carbonate sediments laid down over the last 542 million years, and connected five great extinctions not just with carbon dioxide levels but with the rate at which these increased.

He may be for the moment a lone voice in linking four of the five major extinctions with critical levels of oceanic acidification as a consequence of a carbon dioxide threshold. But climate scientists and palaeontologists have been looking at possible links between carbon and extinction for decades.

They have also repeatedly warned that humans are about to precipitate a sixth mass extinction, chiefly on the basis that we are destroying natural habitat and erasing the conditions in which millions of species – many of them still not identified – were once able to flourish.

The carbon factor

But climate change driven by ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – powered in turn by ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels – has also been a factor.

Whatever the risk to species or ecosystems, biologists and conservationists have warned that climate change driven by global heating can only make things worse.

And the more carefully researchers have looked at evidence of earlier catastrophic extinctions, the more bygone climate change has revealed itself. What caused the most dramatic and unequivocal of these – the “great dying” at the close of the Permian – is still hotly debated, but atmospheric conditions in one form or another have been repeatedly invoked and researchers have repeatedly drawn lessons for today.

But arguments so far have settled on whether such extinctions are a consequence of slow but inexorable episodes of volcanic discharge or some other geological shift.

Forget the trigger

Professor Rothman’s point is that the trigger itself may not be the important thing: what decides the fate of life on Earth is the level of carbon in the oceans and the rate at which it increases.

Once levels of acidification in the upper ocean reach a certain critical threshold, life is in for major disruption. If marine creatures cannot form shells, they are at risk. But even more dangerously, shells sink to the ocean floor, effectively removing carbon from circulation.

If there are fewer calcifying organisms, then less carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and oceans become even more acidic. A vicious cycle has begun.

“It’s a positive feedback,” Professor Rothman said. “More carbon dioxide leads to more carbon dioxide. The question, from a mathematical point of view is, is such a feedback enough to render the system unstable?”

Balance restored

In his mathematical model, once carbon levels reached a critical threshold, a cascade of positive feedbacks amplified the effect. Severe ocean acidification set in.

The effect was not permanent. After tens of thousands of years, the carbon cycle did slip back to equilibrium and life could evolve and adapt again.

Carbon is now entering the oceans at an unprecedented rate, over what – in geological terms – is a very brief timespan. If human-triggered greenhouse gas emissions cross a critical threshold, the consequences could be as severe as any of the previous mass extinctions.

“It’s difficult to know how things will end up, given what is happening today,” he said. “But we are probably close to a critical threshold. Any spike would reach its maximum after about 10,000 years. Hopefully, that would give us time to find a solution.” − Climate News Network

Planting more trees could cut carbon by 25%

Scientists now know where to start restoring the forests to soak up carbon and cool the planet, by planting more trees on unused land.

LONDON, 5 July, 2019 − Swiss scientists have identified an area roughly the size of the United States that could be newly shaded by planting more trees. If the world’s nations then protected these 9 million square kilometres  of canopy over unused land, the new global forest could in theory soak up enough carbon to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas by an estimated 25%.

That is, the extent of new tree canopy would be enough to take the main driver of global heating back to conditions on Earth a century ago.

And a second study, released in the same week, identifies 100 million hectares of degraded or destroyed tropical forest in 15 countries where restoration could start right now – and 87% of these hectares are in biodiversity hotspots that hold high concentrations of species found nowhere else.

The global study of the space available for tree canopy is published in the journal Science. Researchers looked for land not used for agriculture or developed for human settlement. They excluded wetlands and grasslands already fulfilling important ecological functions.

Huge canopy increase

They left existing forests out of their calculations. And they identified enough degraded, wasted, or simply unused land to provide another 0.9 billion hectares – that is, 9 million square kilometres – of tree canopy.

Such new or restored forest could store 205 billion tonnes of carbon. This is about two-thirds of the 300 billion tonnes of extra carbon humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago.

“We all knew that restoring forests could play a part in tackling climate change, but we didn’t really know how big the impact would be. Our study shows clearly that forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today,” said Tom Crowther of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, now known as ETH Zurich.

“But we must act quickly, as new forests will take decades to mature and achieve their full potential as a source of natural carbon storage.”

“Restoring forests is a must-do – and it’s doable”

Forecasts for the future start with the data available now: the Swiss team worked from a dataset of observations of 80,000 forests, and used mapping software to predict possible tree cover worldwide under current conditions.

The big unknown is: what will global heating and climate change do for future forest growth? If nations go on burning fossil fuels at the present rates, then parts of the world could begin to experience harsher conditions and by 2050 the area available for tree cover could have dwindled by 223 million hectares, much of this in the tropics.

Forests are an integral part of the answer to the climate crisis. But forests worldwide, and particularly in the tropics, are also vulnerable to extremes of heat and drought and windstorm that are likely to come with ever higher average temperatures.

Where and when and how nations act to restore forests involves political decisions that must be based on evidence. So researchers have for years been trying to establish the extent of the global tree inventory, and its variety.

Unrecorded forest

They have confirmed the importance and value of urban forests. They have identified huge areas of woodland  hitherto not mapped or recorded. They have tried to make an estimate of the number of trees on the planet and the rate at which they are being felled, grazed, burned, or even extinguished.

They have identified threats to tropical forests, monitored the increasing damage to or degradation of what are  supposed to be protected areas, much of them forested, and they have measured changes in forests as the temperatures rise.

Right now, the world has 5.5 billion hectares of forest or woodland with at least 10% and up to 100% of tree cover: altogether this adds up to 2.8bn hectares of canopy. It also has a challenge to get on with: the Bonn Challenge to extend national forest areas by 350 million hectares by 2030 has been accepted by 48 countries so far.

The Swiss researchers calculated that there were up to 1.8 billion hectares of land of “low human activity” that could be reforested. If half of this was shaded by foliage, that would yield another 900 million hectares of canopy to soak up and store atmospheric carbon, and more than half of this potential tree space was in just six countries: Russia, the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China.

Best restoration options

But a second study, led by Brazilian scientists and published in the journal Science Advances, used high-resolution satellite studies to find that the most compelling opportunities for forest restoration exist in the lowland tropical rainforests of Central and South America, Africa and Southeast Asia.

Almost three-fourths of the restoration hotspots were in countries that had already made commitments under the Bonn Challenge. The five nations with the largest areas in need of restoration are Brazil, Indonesia, India, Madagascar and Colombia. Madagascar is also one of six African nations – the others are Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Togo and South Sudan – that, on average, offer the best immediate opportunities for forest restoration.

“Restoring tropical forests is fundamental to the planet’s health, now and for generations to come,” said Pedro Brancalion, of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, who led the study.

“For the first time, our study helps governments, investors and others seeking to restore global tropical moist forests to determine precise locations where restoring forests is most viable, enduring and beneficial. Restoring forests is a must-do – and it’s doable.” − Climate News Network

Scientists now know where to start restoring the forests to soak up carbon and cool the planet, by planting more trees on unused land.

LONDON, 5 July, 2019 − Swiss scientists have identified an area roughly the size of the United States that could be newly shaded by planting more trees. If the world’s nations then protected these 9 million square kilometres  of canopy over unused land, the new global forest could in theory soak up enough carbon to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas by an estimated 25%.

That is, the extent of new tree canopy would be enough to take the main driver of global heating back to conditions on Earth a century ago.

And a second study, released in the same week, identifies 100 million hectares of degraded or destroyed tropical forest in 15 countries where restoration could start right now – and 87% of these hectares are in biodiversity hotspots that hold high concentrations of species found nowhere else.

The global study of the space available for tree canopy is published in the journal Science. Researchers looked for land not used for agriculture or developed for human settlement. They excluded wetlands and grasslands already fulfilling important ecological functions.

Huge canopy increase

They left existing forests out of their calculations. And they identified enough degraded, wasted, or simply unused land to provide another 0.9 billion hectares – that is, 9 million square kilometres – of tree canopy.

Such new or restored forest could store 205 billion tonnes of carbon. This is about two-thirds of the 300 billion tonnes of extra carbon humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago.

“We all knew that restoring forests could play a part in tackling climate change, but we didn’t really know how big the impact would be. Our study shows clearly that forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today,” said Tom Crowther of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, now known as ETH Zurich.

“But we must act quickly, as new forests will take decades to mature and achieve their full potential as a source of natural carbon storage.”

“Restoring forests is a must-do – and it’s doable”

Forecasts for the future start with the data available now: the Swiss team worked from a dataset of observations of 80,000 forests, and used mapping software to predict possible tree cover worldwide under current conditions.

The big unknown is: what will global heating and climate change do for future forest growth? If nations go on burning fossil fuels at the present rates, then parts of the world could begin to experience harsher conditions and by 2050 the area available for tree cover could have dwindled by 223 million hectares, much of this in the tropics.

Forests are an integral part of the answer to the climate crisis. But forests worldwide, and particularly in the tropics, are also vulnerable to extremes of heat and drought and windstorm that are likely to come with ever higher average temperatures.

Where and when and how nations act to restore forests involves political decisions that must be based on evidence. So researchers have for years been trying to establish the extent of the global tree inventory, and its variety.

Unrecorded forest

They have confirmed the importance and value of urban forests. They have identified huge areas of woodland  hitherto not mapped or recorded. They have tried to make an estimate of the number of trees on the planet and the rate at which they are being felled, grazed, burned, or even extinguished.

They have identified threats to tropical forests, monitored the increasing damage to or degradation of what are  supposed to be protected areas, much of them forested, and they have measured changes in forests as the temperatures rise.

Right now, the world has 5.5 billion hectares of forest or woodland with at least 10% and up to 100% of tree cover: altogether this adds up to 2.8bn hectares of canopy. It also has a challenge to get on with: the Bonn Challenge to extend national forest areas by 350 million hectares by 2030 has been accepted by 48 countries so far.

The Swiss researchers calculated that there were up to 1.8 billion hectares of land of “low human activity” that could be reforested. If half of this was shaded by foliage, that would yield another 900 million hectares of canopy to soak up and store atmospheric carbon, and more than half of this potential tree space was in just six countries: Russia, the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China.

Best restoration options

But a second study, led by Brazilian scientists and published in the journal Science Advances, used high-resolution satellite studies to find that the most compelling opportunities for forest restoration exist in the lowland tropical rainforests of Central and South America, Africa and Southeast Asia.

Almost three-fourths of the restoration hotspots were in countries that had already made commitments under the Bonn Challenge. The five nations with the largest areas in need of restoration are Brazil, Indonesia, India, Madagascar and Colombia. Madagascar is also one of six African nations – the others are Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Togo and South Sudan – that, on average, offer the best immediate opportunities for forest restoration.

“Restoring tropical forests is fundamental to the planet’s health, now and for generations to come,” said Pedro Brancalion, of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, who led the study.

“For the first time, our study helps governments, investors and others seeking to restore global tropical moist forests to determine precise locations where restoring forests is most viable, enduring and beneficial. Restoring forests is a must-do – and it’s doable.” − Climate News Network

Climate crisis needs radical food changes

From farm to fork, agriculture fuels global heating. Can the world eat well, but stay a little cooler? That will need radical food changes.

LONDON, 3 July, 2019 – To feed 9 billion people by 2050, and keep planet Earth from overheating, will mean massive and radical food changes – and not just in the way food is grown.

To contain global temperatures to no more than 2°C above the average for most of human history will require humanity to change its diet, contain its appetite and reform the entire system of food production and distribution.

This is the verdict of the latest study of the challenge set in Paris in 2015, when 195 nations promised to limit global warming – driven by profligate use of fossil fuels and by the conversion of forest, grassland and wetlands into commercial use – to “well below” 2°C by 2100.

Researchers report in the journal Sustainability that they looked at 160 studies and analyses of global agriculture and food systems and most closely at the world’s smallholders and markets that sustain as many as 2.5 billion people, mostly in the developing world.

Farming’s massive impact

Small farmers account for about a third of global agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, but these include also many of the people most vulnerable to the coming climate crisis, which is likely to put harvests at hazard on a global scale.

Agriculture, together with forestry and changes in land use, accounts for a quarter of all the carbon dioxide, methane and oxides of nitrogen that fuel global warming.

Just on its own, the action of growing grain, fruit and vegetables or feeding grazing animals accounts for no more than 12% of global warming, but a third of all the food that leaves the farm gate is wasted before it arrives on the supper table.

This is enough to provide 8% of the world’s emissions, and if just one fourth of the waste could be saved, that would be enough to feed 870 million people for a year.

By making smart investments in climate action, we can save lives now through improved air quality and health”

Agronomists, crop researchers, climate scientists and ministry planners know of many steps that can be taken to reduce the greenhouse impact of agriculture: even under the most hopeful forecasts, these are likely to be deployed slowly.

The researchers see reductions in food loss as a “big opportunity” that will benefit farmers and consumers as well as reduce emissions. A more challenging problem is to change global appetites: the meat and dairy business accounts for about 18% of all human-triggered emissions, counting the clearance of forests and the impact of changes in the way land is used to feed the demand for meat, milk, butter and cheese.

A shift to plant-based diets would save on land and water and deliver more and healthier meals and permit more forest restoration.

“If you think about the two degree increase, efforts need to go beyond the agriculture sector,” said Anna Maria Loboguerrero, of the climate change, agriculture and food security programme of CGIAR, once known as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, who led the study.

Drastic cuts needed

“This means reducing emissions by stopping deforestation, decreasing food loss and waste, reducing supply chain emissions and rethinking human diets, if we really want to get on track to that target.”

The researchers acknowledge that what they propose will constrain farm choices and increase costs. But a second study reports once again that the health benefits of immediate, dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will save lives, improve human health, and offset the immediate costs of containing planetary heating and adapting to the climate crisis.

“The global health benefits from climate policy could reach trillions of dollars annually, but will importantly depend on the air quality policies that nations adopt independently of climate change,” they write in the journal Nature Communications.

And Mark Budolfson of the University of Vermont, one of the authors, said: “We show the climate conversation doesn’t need to be about the current generation investing in the further future. By making smart investments in climate action, we can save lives now through improved air quality and health.” – Climate News Network

From farm to fork, agriculture fuels global heating. Can the world eat well, but stay a little cooler? That will need radical food changes.

LONDON, 3 July, 2019 – To feed 9 billion people by 2050, and keep planet Earth from overheating, will mean massive and radical food changes – and not just in the way food is grown.

To contain global temperatures to no more than 2°C above the average for most of human history will require humanity to change its diet, contain its appetite and reform the entire system of food production and distribution.

This is the verdict of the latest study of the challenge set in Paris in 2015, when 195 nations promised to limit global warming – driven by profligate use of fossil fuels and by the conversion of forest, grassland and wetlands into commercial use – to “well below” 2°C by 2100.

Researchers report in the journal Sustainability that they looked at 160 studies and analyses of global agriculture and food systems and most closely at the world’s smallholders and markets that sustain as many as 2.5 billion people, mostly in the developing world.

Farming’s massive impact

Small farmers account for about a third of global agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, but these include also many of the people most vulnerable to the coming climate crisis, which is likely to put harvests at hazard on a global scale.

Agriculture, together with forestry and changes in land use, accounts for a quarter of all the carbon dioxide, methane and oxides of nitrogen that fuel global warming.

Just on its own, the action of growing grain, fruit and vegetables or feeding grazing animals accounts for no more than 12% of global warming, but a third of all the food that leaves the farm gate is wasted before it arrives on the supper table.

This is enough to provide 8% of the world’s emissions, and if just one fourth of the waste could be saved, that would be enough to feed 870 million people for a year.

By making smart investments in climate action, we can save lives now through improved air quality and health”

Agronomists, crop researchers, climate scientists and ministry planners know of many steps that can be taken to reduce the greenhouse impact of agriculture: even under the most hopeful forecasts, these are likely to be deployed slowly.

The researchers see reductions in food loss as a “big opportunity” that will benefit farmers and consumers as well as reduce emissions. A more challenging problem is to change global appetites: the meat and dairy business accounts for about 18% of all human-triggered emissions, counting the clearance of forests and the impact of changes in the way land is used to feed the demand for meat, milk, butter and cheese.

A shift to plant-based diets would save on land and water and deliver more and healthier meals and permit more forest restoration.

“If you think about the two degree increase, efforts need to go beyond the agriculture sector,” said Anna Maria Loboguerrero, of the climate change, agriculture and food security programme of CGIAR, once known as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, who led the study.

Drastic cuts needed

“This means reducing emissions by stopping deforestation, decreasing food loss and waste, reducing supply chain emissions and rethinking human diets, if we really want to get on track to that target.”

The researchers acknowledge that what they propose will constrain farm choices and increase costs. But a second study reports once again that the health benefits of immediate, dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will save lives, improve human health, and offset the immediate costs of containing planetary heating and adapting to the climate crisis.

“The global health benefits from climate policy could reach trillions of dollars annually, but will importantly depend on the air quality policies that nations adopt independently of climate change,” they write in the journal Nature Communications.

And Mark Budolfson of the University of Vermont, one of the authors, said: “We show the climate conversation doesn’t need to be about the current generation investing in the further future. By making smart investments in climate action, we can save lives now through improved air quality and health.” – Climate News Network