tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14295467116998061112024-03-09T17:13:36.561+11:00Climate Code RedClimate code redDavid Spratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17579440972803022382noreply@blogger.comBlogger43813tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1429546711699806111.post-19054180376425307872024-03-09T17:12:00.005+11:002024-03-09T17:12:50.886+11:00Is scientific reticence the new climate denialism?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2TB90PAyWBPNX3C8cHbEwk_5PVqxaz9BodAicJnhotTPmcvDvaThgye-EAeJOWMg7XOwTM6FYGwZ3RPg6pql5SUp4xnk7ircWyUWeLVbx2BHRG9yrxT49DVB76P4S0yd1TQvLmDhtBma7ooaE4n7qujHh4BTNVegGnkGeYsvJPUeRMrOP5BfZbmUpLhk/s582/Screen%20Shot%202018-01-10%20at%2011.37.28%20AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="582" height="502" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2TB90PAyWBPNX3C8cHbEwk_5PVqxaz9BodAicJnhotTPmcvDvaThgye-EAeJOWMg7XOwTM6FYGwZ3RPg6pql5SUp4xnk7ircWyUWeLVbx2BHRG9yrxT49DVB76P4S0yd1TQvLmDhtBma7ooaE4n7qujHh4BTNVegGnkGeYsvJPUeRMrOP5BfZbmUpLhk/w640-h502/Screen%20Shot%202018-01-10%20at%2011.37.28%20AM.png" width="640" /></a></div> <br />Jonathon Porritt (technically, Sir Jonathon Espie Porritt, 2nd Baronet, CBE) has an excellent piece out, called <a href="https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism" target="_blank">"Mainstream climate science: The new denialism?"</a> <p></p><p>It really is worth the read. For people who have followed this blog, it won't be shockingly new, but in a forthright manner he questions the startling new reality we are facing, which we discussed in recent series for <i>Pearls&Irritations</i>: </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://johnmenadue.com/humanitys-new-era-of-global-boiling-climates-2023-annus-horribilis/" target="_blank">Humanity’s new era of “global boiling”: Climate’s 2023 annus horribilis</a> </li><li><a href="https://johnmenadue.com/part-2-towards-an-unliveable-planet-climates-2023-annus-horribilis/" target="_blank">Towards an unliveable planet: Climate’s 2023 annus horribilis</a></li><li><a href="https://johnmenadue.com/as-warming-accelerates-and-1-5c-is-breached-faster-than-forecast-australia-needs-to-re-think-climate-risks-and-policy/" target="_blank">Shock as warming accelerates, 1.5°C is breached faster than forecast</a></li></ul><p>Porritt focusses on the "deceit" of "mainstream scientists, NGOs and commentators" have been "holding back" because of the alleged need to "protect people from the truth of climate change", noting that this strategy has not worked "as a way of enlisting the huge numbers of people required to force our politicians to start getting serious".<br /><br />And he concludes that "we have to see off this patronising, manipulative, self-serving deceit ONCE AND FOR ALL".<span></span></p><a name='more'></a>Here is an extract from the early part of Porritt's analysis, in which he starts by summarising his analysis:<br /><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>The speed with which the climate is now changing is faster than (almost) all scientists thought possible.</li><li>There is now zero prospect of holding the average temperature increase this century to below 1.5°C; even 2°C is beginning to slip out of reach. The vast majority of climate scientists know this, but rarely if ever give voice to this critically important reality.</li><li>At the same time, the vast majority of people still haven’t a clue about what’s going on – and what this means for them and everything they hold dear.</li><li>The current backlash against existing (already wholly inadequate) climate measures is also accelerating – and will cause considerable political damage in 2024. Those driving this backlash represent the same old climate denial that has been so damaging over so many years.</li><li>The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption.]</li><li>By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.</li></ol><p>He then proceeds with this:<br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>Hot off the press: we heard today (March 7th) that February was the hottest month ever, with an average temperature that was an astonishing 1.77°C above pre-industrial levels.</p><p>I don’t want to slow down the narrative here – so I’ve just given a flavour of some of that evidence about current extremes in the equivalent of an Appendix. And then further details about the speed with which certain “tipping points” are looming ever larger in a second Appendix. A quick glance is all you’ll need. But if you just can’t see why I’m getting so hot and bothered about all this, PLEASE check it out!</p><p>And there goes my reputation as a “glass half-full sort of a guy”! I will, from herein on, be badged as a full-on “doomist”, a “prophet of apocalyptic despair”, an anarchist/communist/subversive seeking “to bring down capitalism” by “existentializing” (I kid you not!) the “perfectly manageable threat of climate change”.</p><p>Guilty as charged.</p><p>It’s not just the right-wing crazies (of whom, more later) who follow that line. All sorts of serious commentators have subscribed (for years!) to the hypothesis that there’s only so much climate truth the little people can deal with. Here’s Pilita Clark writing in the Financial Times in August 2023:</p><blockquote><p>“Doomist thinking is dangerous because it breeds paralysis and disengagement, which is precisely what the forces of climate inaction want.” “Doomism is ultimately a luxury that only a few can afford.”</p></blockquote><p>Brilliant! So we’re the ones responsible for the lack of political traction, by virtue of a surfeit of hairshirt misery that only the middle class can afford!</p><p>These accusations of doomism are not new. Writing back in 2019, US author Jonathan Franzen put it like this:</p><p>“If you’re younger than 60, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilisation of life on Earth – massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under 30, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it.</p><p>You can keep on hoping that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or enraged by the world’s inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope today.”</p><p>I would be the first to acknowledge some kind of continuing denial sort-of makes sense. It can be very painful to have to properly embrace an understanding of what is actually happening in the climate today. And it can get even more disheartening when we take account of the constraints of human psychology and behaviour, let alone today’s political reality.</p><p>I get all that. But mainstream scientists, NGOs and commentators have been “holding back”, on those very grounds, for a long time. And it certainly hasn’t worked as a way of enlisting the huge numbers of people required to force our politicians to start getting serious.</p><p>Simple conclusion: we have to see off this patronising, manipulative, self-serving deceit (about needing to protect people from the truth of climate change) ONCE AND FOR ALL.</p><p>Particularly if you happen to be a climate scientist still playing the “we’ve got this covered” card.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>The full article is here:<br /><a href="https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/">https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/</a></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiglACTGrbJkYbn2nsAZlX1M1rLsNU4N6z_bZwS3Zl0SAEIDgdiljMLWRt0TlTZEooZQBeIQG30n04qs4NRvmxZTnPsedfsmBu2LLlkUk76ovpO0XaOHtIxa2_GEVH-jPPOzVgAMUUa42XrRz4Wt3WBUQI3f-FFuQM_LHu7wI-ANqZwb_ATYgUGpisxfnc/s1050/WLB%20cover.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1050" data-original-width="684" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiglACTGrbJkYbn2nsAZlX1M1rLsNU4N6z_bZwS3Zl0SAEIDgdiljMLWRt0TlTZEooZQBeIQG30n04qs4NRvmxZTnPsedfsmBu2LLlkUk76ovpO0XaOHtIxa2_GEVH-jPPOzVgAMUUa42XrRz4Wt3WBUQI3f-FFuQM_LHu7wI-ANqZwb_ATYgUGpisxfnc/s320/WLB%20cover.png" width="208" /></a></div><br />A similar analysis, focusing on the underestimation of existential climate risks by mainstream science, and particular the IPCC, was published by Ian Dunlop and myself in 2018 under the title <a href="https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/whatliesbeneath" target="_blank">"What Lies Beneath"</a>, with a foreword by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber which amongst other things said that: <p></p><p></p><blockquote>It [<i>What Lies Beneath</i>] is the critical overview of well-informed intellectuals who sit outside the climate-science community, which has developed over the last fifty years. All such expert communities are prone to what the French call <i>deformation professionelle</i> and the German <i>betriebsblindheit</i>.<br /><br />Expressed in plain English, experts tend to establish a peer world-view which becomes ever more rigid and focussed. Yet the crucial insights regarding the issue in question may lurk at the fringes, as this report suggests. This is particularly true when the issue is the very survival of our civilisation, where conventional means of analysis may become useless.</blockquote><br />David<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><menu id="fcltHTML5Menu1" type="context"><menuitem command="context" label="Textise it"></menuitem></menu>David Spratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10764602207638453984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1429546711699806111.post-20229593280979657752024-02-29T08:42:00.001+11:002024-02-29T08:42:27.739+11:00Pigs might fly: Australian aviation’s delusional emissions future<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUfvshx8lOIbgYaP6uQH1Qy2isuTjnj6KZm-kPvRmfuNTAaUK9NP7FAh11LtTb2facY76SI_Pk78KidRrQSOC2iVNh-9w0vR-tsJ8to7kJg8ghlwk9F348LZ99s9XVVH6BwSiYpkCd4uJkAR5dyd-NqBQw0fpYLIgEZtHmBep2VMgWNznHscwZ8WKUkak/s800/Pigs-might-fly_iStock-collage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="800" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUfvshx8lOIbgYaP6uQH1Qy2isuTjnj6KZm-kPvRmfuNTAaUK9NP7FAh11LtTb2facY76SI_Pk78KidRrQSOC2iVNh-9w0vR-tsJ8to7kJg8ghlwk9F348LZ99s9XVVH6BwSiYpkCd4uJkAR5dyd-NqBQw0fpYLIgEZtHmBep2VMgWNznHscwZ8WKUkak/w640-h400/Pigs-might-fly_iStock-collage.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p>by <b>Mark Carter</b>, first published at <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/pigs-might-fly-australian-aviations-delusional-emissions-future/" target="_blank">Pearls and Irritations</a> <br /></p><p>Australian aviation is in the news again. Having <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/23/qantas-lower-fares-record-profit-alan-joyce">ripped off passengers</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/qantas-loses-high-court-appeal-over-sacked-workers-20230912-p5e41l.html">illegally sacked workers</a>, and <a href="https://bfpca.org.au/54-stonewalling/">impacted the health of residents under airport flight paths</a>, the industry has now received <a href="https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/jet-zero-council-launches-as-government-invests-in-saf">$30m from taxpayers</a> to manufacture “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF). And <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/dec/01/industry-super-funds-warn-slow-transition-to-net-zero-puts-australia-at-risk-of-losing-attractive-investments">investors</a> and <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/qantas-calls-on-canberra-to-back-sustainable-aviation-fuel-industry-20231210-p5eqde">airlines</a> are clamouring for more.<span id="more-376735"></span></p>
<p>Having “committed to net zero emissions by 2050”, or Net Zero 2050, (<a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation_green_paper.pdf">Aviation Green Paper, p.1</a>) the federal government says sustainable aviation fuel will help maximise “aviation’s contribution” (<a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation_green_paper.pdf">Aviation Green Paper, p.73</a>).</p>
<p>So, yes. Pigs might fly. Literally and metaphorically.</p>
<p>Literally as <span><a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2376853-planes-could-soon-run-on-pig-fat-but-it-wont-reduce-emissions/">pig fat in SAF</a></span>. And metaphorically because the government’s emissions reduction proposals for aviation can never make flying climate safe.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p>Sustainable aviation fuel won’t allow the planet to cool. SAF won’t make flight emissions
net zero by 2050. And Net Zero 2050 won’t prevent 2ºC of warming.</p>
<p><b>Sustainable aviation fuel won’t allow the planet to cool</b></p>
<p>2ºC of warming will likely trigger <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115">life-as-we-know-it-ending consequences</a>. For an acceptable chance of avoiding them, <a href="https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/climate-repair-three-things-we-must-do-now-to-stabilise-the-planet/">according to leading climate scientists</a>,
we need to do three things, and aviation has a role in two of them.
Right now, new emissions need to be cut to near absolute zero at
emergency speed to prevent increased warming. At the same time, we need
to draw down the CO2 already in the atmosphere to cool a dangerously hot
planet. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784">last time CO2 in the atmosphere was as high as now</a> — 420 ppm — warming hit 3ºC and sea levels ended up 10 metres higher.</p>
<p>We need to stop the warming and start the cooling.</p>
<p>Our government, however, is trapped in the delusion that cooling can
be ignored, that drawing down CO2 can safely allow new CO2 emissions.
This delusion has a name. It’s called “Net Zero 2050”. And the CO2
reduction claims for Sustainable Aviation Fuel ride on its coat tails.</p>
<p><b>Sustainable aviation fuel</b><b> won’t make flight emissions net zero by 2050</b></p>
<p>SAF, when burnt, emits the same amount of CO2 as jet diesel, not
less. The claimed reduction, compared to jet diesel CO2 emissions, is
achieved when CO2 drawn down in growing the SAF feedstock — whether pig
or plant — is subtracted from in-flight emissions. SAF’s ‘lifecycle’ CO2
emissions (growing through to burning) are less than jet diesel’s. In
this way SAF CO2 emissions can be said to be net zero. As such SAF is
then marketed as ‘clean’, ‘green’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘eco-friendly’ —
despite preventing cooling.</p>
<p>Even if we ignore the priority of cooling, it’s delusional to think SAF can make flight emissions net zero by 2050.</p>
<p>Firstly, because SAF can only claim ‘net zero’ for CO2 flight
emissions. While non-CO2 emissions, including nitrous oxides and
contrail cirrus, for a given flight, contribute <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231020305689">twice the warming</a> of CO2 alone (<a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation_green_paper.pdf">Aviation Green Paper, p.78</a>), and can’t be drawn down.</p>
<p>Secondly, in practice, for Australian aviation to get to net zero CO2
emissions, 100% SAF would be required to fuel all flights. Yet, the
size of the financial investment and land acquisition required to grow
the feedstock, then manufacture and <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/august/sustainable-aviation-industry-australia">deploy it to all flights</a> — 20 billion litres by 2050 — will, <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation-white-paper-scenario-analysis-september-2023.pdf">the government agrees</a>, be <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2023/12/05/aviation-wants-sustainable-fuels-the-problem-is-there-isnt-enough/?sh=530f64bb6b53">prohibitive</a>.</p>
<p>Federal transport minister, Catherine King (<a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation_green_paper.pdf">Aviation Green Paper, p.38</a>),
says offsetting will therefore be needed to help make CO2 flight
emissions net zero by 2050. But her colleague, federal climate minister,
Chris Bowen, disagrees. He has specifically <a href="https://minister.dcceew.gov.au/bowen/transcripts/national-press-club-address-qa-session">ruled out the use of offsets</a>
across the transport sector under Safeguard Mechanism regulations to
achieve emissions reductions of 43% by 2030 on the way to NZ2050.</p>
<p>Offsetting allows a tonne of new CO2 flight emissions right now, on
the premise that another tonne will be drawn down somewhere, some time
later. But <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/carbon-credits-and-offsets-explained/">in practice that rarely happens</a>. And even when it does it still prevents cooling.</p>
<p><b>Net zero 2050 won’t prevent 2ºC of warming</b></p>
<p>Underlying the government’s projected future for Australian aviation
sits the delusion that 2ºC of warming will be prevented if CO2 emissions
get to net zero by 2050.</p>
<p>Emissions reduction proposals, like NZ2050, should have a near zero
risk of failure — as we require for the infrastructure we build — given
the threat that 2ºC represents. Yet the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/">IPCC acknowledges a risk of failure for Net Zero 2050</a> that most would find unacceptable. <a href="https://berkeleyearth.org/november-2023-temperature-update/">Warming in 2023</a> has already <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/climate-change-2023-will-be-warmest-year-record-eus-copernicus-2023-12-06/">nudged 1.5ºC</a>. It will hit 2ºC by the 2040s if significant policy changes are not made, according to <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2022EF003330">current climate models</a>. Indeed, former NASA climate chief James Hansen <a href="https://mailchi.mp/caa/how-we-know-that-global-warming-is-accelerating-and-that-the-goal-of-the-paris-agreement-is-dead?e=3763203384">recently warned</a> that “global warming of 2ºC will be reached by the late 2030s”.</p>
<p>On current plans, the <a href="https://productiongap.org/">UN reports annual new emissions globally will be no lower in 2050 than they are today</a>. With our government planning for a threefold increase in flights by 2050 (<a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aviation_green_paper.pdf">Aviation Green Paper, p.96</a>) actual flight emissions from Australian aviation won’t be dropping either.</p>
<p>In summary, Australian aviation policy is based on these three delusions. In reality, for a chance of holding warming to 2ºC, <a href="https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html">all emissions need to be reduced at emergency speed</a>. And, because <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint">flying is the fastest way to fry the planet</a>, the only way aviation emissions can be cut at the speed required, is by regulating flight reductions to near zero by 2030.</p>
<p>We’re <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/06/earth-on-verge-of-five-catastrophic-tipping-points-scientists-warn">facing the abyss</a></span>. And our government is telling us we can fly. So will we jump?</p><menu id="fcltHTML5Menu1" type="context"><menuitem command="context" label="Textise it"></menuitem></menu>David Spratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10764602207638453984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1429546711699806111.post-47426195476913738012024-02-14T08:34:00.001+11:002024-02-14T11:27:04.917+11:00As warming accelerates and 1.5°C is breached faster than forecast, Australian Government stumbles on climate risks<p> by <b>David Spratt</b> and <b>Ian Dunlop</b>, first published at <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/as-warming-accelerates-and-1-5c-is-breached-faster-than-forecast-australia-needs-to-re-think-climate-risks-and-policy/" target="_blank"><i>Pearls and Irritations</i></a> <br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJEXTw-wCt7OH-umXBLp02gL-Kv57GbUoH6VGPrStnpa3DSON38T6gJPzSyPxtuSosPoJECN1WThmPJzmKLCi4yY4IZ0XWzPVcVad_INmpZHxgCZJyqjtZfJKgK2wKFmypmSgqrpyiUmG7q8zBIjLJRtYxKyKnvOVYHFyWzVFIZegj-NmXmXfwJ3SCuEI/s1024/SeasonalWrap-2023.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="1024" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJEXTw-wCt7OH-umXBLp02gL-Kv57GbUoH6VGPrStnpa3DSON38T6gJPzSyPxtuSosPoJECN1WThmPJzmKLCi4yY4IZ0XWzPVcVad_INmpZHxgCZJyqjtZfJKgK2wKFmypmSgqrpyiUmG7q8zBIjLJRtYxKyKnvOVYHFyWzVFIZegj-NmXmXfwJ3SCuEI/w400-h220/SeasonalWrap-2023.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />If there was shock and awe last week when the Copernicus Climate
Change Service announced that global average warming over the last
twelve months — February 2023 to January 2024 — <span><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68110310">had exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius </a></span>(°C),
it was likely because too many people had succumbed to the predominant
but delusional policy-making narrative that holding warming to 1.5–2°C
was still on the cards.<span id="more-376353"></span><p></p>
<p>What does this symbolically important moment mean for the poor
understanding of climate-risk analysis by Australian governments? To
begin, the idea that emissions could continue till 2050 and still
achieve the 1.5–2°C goal was always a con; now it is fully exposed.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p>One year of 1.5°C does not constitute a trend, which technically can
only be seen in retrospect over 20 to 30 years of data. But with <span><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-01-08/2024-could-be-even-warmer-than-record-setting-2023">another hot year likely in 2024</a></span>, the rate of warming accelerating, and a <span><a href="https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1725529865690976507">current peak in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance </a></span>—
which is an indicator of future warming — it is hard to disagree with
the assessment of former NASA climate science chief James Hansen that
the world has now reached the 1.5°C mark for all practical purposes.</p>
<p>When the 2015 global climate conference resulted in the Paris
Agreement’s commitment to hold climate warming to the 1.5–2°C band,
those numbers quickly became normalised as the <i>sine qua non </i>of climate
policymaking. But that was a grand illusion on two counts:</p>
<blockquote><p>The <b>first</b> was that 1.5°C was a safe or
appropriate target. Sir David King, the former UK Chief Scientist, had
collaborated with the small-island states in the lead-up to the Paris
conference in pushing the 1.5°C goal. But in 2021,<i> The Independent
</i>journalist Donnachadh McCarthy <span><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/arctic-ocean-ice-temperature-climate-change-b1790779.html"><span>reported </span></a></span>that
King “astounded me by saying he now realised this was wrong, and
believes the passing of the Arctic tipping point has already been
reached… He said the 1.1°C rise that we already have is too dangerous —
and candidly admitted he believed US climate professor James Hansen had
been right after all in 1988, when he warned the US Congress that we
should not pass 350 ppm. We have now [in 2021] breached 415 ppm and are
heading fast towards 500ppm” (emphasis added).</p>
<p>The <b>second</b> illusion was that there was any realistic
hope of keeping warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C, given the decades of
policy-making failure (see image below), <span><a href="https://theconversation.com/fossil-co-emissions-hit-record-high-yet-again-in-2023-216436"><span>emissions breaking new records year after year</span></a></span>, the <span><a href="http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/09/renowned-climate-scientist-warns-rate.html"><span>reduced levels of aerosols which are masking warming</span></a></span>,
the political inertia rooted in adherence to a slow, economically
non-disruptive mitigation path, and in particular state capture by the
fossil fuel industry, allowing fossil fuel expansion. Many of us,
including some leading scientists, <span><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/too-hot-to-handle-can-we-afford-a-4-degree-rise-20110709-1h7hh.html"><span>have been warning for a long time </span></a></span>that
the world would flash past 2°C and into the existential 3-4°C range
given the failure to treat climate change as the single greatest threat
to humanity, and respond accordingly.</p></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://johnmenadue.com/?attachment_id=376358" rel="attachment wp-att-376358" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" class="moz-reader-block-img" height="277" src="https://johnmenadue.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Screenshot-2024-02-12-at-3.52.34%E2%80%AFpm.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Courtesy: CarbonCredits.com</td></tr></tbody></table>
<p>But policymakers focused on the scenarios provided by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is charged with
presenting policy-relevant science; that is, science for
politically-appointed policymakers. The 2018 IPCC <span><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/"><span><i>Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C </i></span></a></span>said
that global temperature was currently rising around 0.2°C per decade,
and “if this pace of warming continues, it would reach 1.5°C around
2040”. The more recent, new generation CMIP6 models using an emissions
scenario closest to current circumstances <span><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming/">showed 1.5°C between 2026 and 2042</a></span>,
with a median of 2032. These sets of numbers created a comfort zone for
policymakers (”it could be 20 years away”) at odds with the reality now
unfolding.</p>
<p>In 2021, Hansen warned that the <span><a href="http://www.climatecodered.org/2021/09/renowned-climate-scientist-warns-rate.html">rate of global warming over next 25 years could be double that of the previous 50</a></span>, and in 2023 he pointed to <span><a href="https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889"><span>clear evidence that this acceleration was now happening</span></a></span>.
Some were initially sceptical, but as records continue to be smashed
month after month, it is now more widely appreciated that the warming
rate is at least 50 per cent higher than earlier decades, at 0.3°C per
decade.</p>
<p>Last week Celeste Saulo, the new chief of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), said that <span><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-world-meteorological-organization-baltimore-james-hansen-north-america-b2492342.html">the rate of human-caused climate change is accelerating</a></span>,
based on research by some WMO science teams. She was concerned not
knowing what it means for the future: “We are not there in terms of our
scientific understanding of the implications of this acceleration. We
don’t fully understand how it is going to evolve.” That should be a real
worry for the Australian Government, too, in this hottest and driest
continent.</p>
<p>That acceleration moves forward the timeline for reaching 2°C of
warming, for the manifestation of more severe impacts, and for systemic
tipping points. <span><a href="http://mailchi.mp/caa/how-we-know-that-global-warming-is-accelerating-and-that-the-goal-of-the-paris-agreement-%2520is-dead">Hansen warns that warming will accelerate to 1.7°C by 2030</a></span>.
In comparison, current modelling reflected in IPCC reports show
temperatures “are expected to pass 2°C in the modest-mitigation SSP2-4.5
scenario – where emissions remain around current levels – <span><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming/">between 2038 and 2072, with a median year of 2052</a></span>”.</p>
<p>Advice to the Australian Government from the sclerotic Climate Change
Authority, reports from CSIRO, and the current, domestically-focused,
National Climate Risk Assessment (NCRA) all use the IPCC work as the
bedrock of their work and advocacy. This is now a disaster, because
warming may be 15 years ahead of the IPCC’s out-dated analysis, and its
history of reticence on tipping points.</p>
<p>The NCRA is still using a 1.5–2°C by 2050 scenario, Department of Climate Change Deputy Secretary Jo Evans <a href="https://www.aapnews.com.au/news/climate-risk-assessment-based-on-dream-1-5c-scenario/gRdlatnw">told</a>
Greens Senator Larissa Waters at Senate Estimates on 12 February. Asked Senator Waters:</p><blockquote><p>“I
don’t understand why you are doing a risk assessment based on a scenario
that’s so below what’s actually going to happen. That doesn’t give you
an adequate picture of risk. Isn’t the whole point of doing this risk
analysis to understand what the risks are?” <br /></p></blockquote><p>“We don’t
think it’s unrealistic. You are expressing your take on it,” replied
Evans.</p>
<p>And that’s the problem. The Government simply isn’t up to speed, and its risk assessment process is out of time.</p>
<p>Hansen’s analysis doesn’t have to be exactly right for his conclusion
to be taken very seriously as a plausible worst-case scenario — though
he has not been substantially wrong on any of the big issues in a career
spanning 50 years. Such a scenario should play a prominent role in
generating climate advice to governments, because when risks are
existential — as climate minister Bowen has accepted — it is important
to give particular attention to the plausible worst-case or high-end
scenarios. That is where the damage is greatest, and we do not get a
“second chance” to learn from our mistakes when a risk is
civilisation-ending. Thus the urgency for precautionary action to ensure
these scenarios never occur.</p>
<p>Last month, Prof. Matt King, the head of the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/jan/21/antarctica-melting-ice-shelf-sea-cover-professor-matt-king"><span>said he found it embarrassing how little was known about the local and global ramifications of Antarctic changes</span></a></span>,
“including a historic drop in floating sea ice cover, the accelerating
melting of giant ice sheets and the slowing of a deep ocean current
known as the Southern Ocean overturning circulation”, which may threaten
the viability of some Australian agriculture sectors amongst many
adverse impacts.</p>
<p>With warming way ahead of the IPCC view, <span><a href="https://johnmenadue.com/humanitys-new-era-of-global-boiling-climates-2023-annus-horribilis/"><span>extreme events astounding scientists as they reach way outside the model projections</span></a></span>, inadequate understanding of <span><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-01/how-the-jet-stream-has-been-causing-extreme-weather/102885780"><span>how a destabilising jet stream is magnifying heat and rain bomb extremes</span></a></span>, and worries about faster-than-forecast tipping points including <span><a href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/">a new study which suggests the Atlantic overturning circulation (AMOC) “is on tipping course</a></span>”,
any government focussed on protecting their people from unexpected and
catastrophic impacts would commission an urgent review of this
fast-changing landscape.</p>
<p>Bob Berwyn at <i>Inside Climate News </i><span><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022024/climate-impacts-from-collapse-of-atlantic-meridional-overturning-current-could-be-worse-than-expected/">reports </a></span>the
author of a 2023 AMOC paper, Peter Ditlevsen, as saying that a collapse
of the heat-transporting circulation is a "going-out-of-business
scenario" for European agriculture.</p>
<p>Given the way the Australian Public Service has been gutted of climate expertise, the sad state of CSIRO, and <span><a href="https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/_files/ugd/148cb0_300c6784078c49d1b9d38ce28f978711.pdf"><span>the methodological mess into which the NCRA has fallen</span></a></span>,
an urgent review would be best led by an independent, eminent scientist
or scientists who can give analysis and advice free of the turf wars,
the silos and the culture of failure so evident within government
structures, and of the dead hand of the fossil fuel industry. It could
be a similar role to that played by Ross Garnaut on the economics of
climate change.</p>
<p>Some questions the climate minister could reasonably be asked today now include:</p>
<blockquote><p><b>1.</b> What specific advice has the minister
received on the magnitude of the warming acceleration, and on the
implications for impacts and policy-making in Australia over the next
twenty years?</p>
<p><b>2.</b> Will the scientific inputs to the NCRA be revised
in light of this recognition of accelerated warming, and will new
modelling be done to accommodate these changed circumstances?</p>
<p><b>3.</b> How will the Antarctic changes identified by Matt King be incorporated into the NCRA, especially for food production?</p>
<p><b>4.</b> Is the NCRA giving particular attention to a
plausible worst-case scenario? In such a scenario, what level of global
warming to 2050 would we be looking at?</p>
<p><b>5.</b> Chatham House’s 2021 Climate Risk Assessment
identifies a high-end scenario as warming of 3.5°C or more this century.
Will the NCRA be specifically looking at such a scenario?</p>
<p><b>6.</b> What precautionary action will be taken to head off this looming national climate catastrophe?</p></blockquote>
<p>Given the performance in Senate Estimates this week, it is not easy to be optimistic about the government’s response.</p><p> </p><menu id="fcltHTML5Menu1" type="context"><menuitem command="context" label="Textise it"></menuitem></menu><menu id="fcltHTML5Menu1" type="context"><menuitem command="context" label="Textise it"></menuitem></menu>David Spratthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10764602207638453984noreply@blogger.com