A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions. This month will start off with COP-26 and many targets and plans and mechanisms will be proposed and discussed. Look out for the updated impacts of the evolving NDCs such as this one from Climate Resource, suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming (relative to the pre-industrial) (if everyone does what they pledge and we are lucky with respect to climate sensitivity). Please be respectful and constructive.
Blog – realclimate.org – All Posts
Unforced variations: Nov 2021
This month’s open thread. The first two weeks will be dominated by COP-26, and various science updates that will be announced there, including this year’s Global Carbon Project report. Curiously, there is some archival interest in the climategate affair possibly in connection to COP-26 (a BBC dramatization “The Trick“, a BBC radio series on the security aspects “The Hack that Changed the World”, and a couple of months ago, a podcast episode of “Cheat!”). Please stick to science-related topics on this thread.
A science-based move to climate change adaptation
All countries in the world urgently need to adapt to climate change but are not yet in a good position to do so. It’s urgent because we are not even adapted to the present climate. This fact is underscored by recent weather-related calamities, such as flooding in Central Europe and heatwaves over North America. It’s also urgent because the oceans act like a flywheel, making sure that cuts in emission of greenhouse gases will have a lagged effect on global warming.
Climate change adaptation was addressed in the Paris Agreement from 2015, the Climate Adaptation Summit in January 2021, and will be one of four key priorities during the upcoming COP26. Proper climate adaptation of course needs meteorological and climatological data for mapping weather-related risks to prepare us for future extreme weather. However, I would argue that the climate research community has not had a visible presence during any of these meetings. Instead the summits have been dominated by politicians and NGOs.
[Read more…] about A science-based move to climate change adaptationTributes to Geert Jan van Oldenborgh
As many of you will know, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh died on Oct 12, 2021, and in the last week a number of very touching tributes have appeared. Notably, a lovely obituary in the NY Times by Henry Fountain, a segment on the BBC’s Inside Science from Roland Pease, a piece on Bloomberg News by Eric Roston and, of course, an appreciation from his colleagues at World Weather Attribution (including Friederike Otto, the co-recipient of the TIME 100 award to Geert earlier this year).
Geert’s work had been featured often at RealClimate (notably the rapid attribution work for the Pacific North West heat wave earlier this year), and we have made frequent reference to Climate Explorer, the tool he built to provide easier access to many sources of climate data. He also provided us with annual updates for the comparison between a 1981 climate projection to subsequent observations.
He let us know earlier this year that this was likely the last update. Moge hij rusten in vrede.
A Nobel pursuit
Last week, the Nobel physics prize was (half) awarded to Suki Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann for their work on climate prediction and the detection and attribution of climate change. This came as quite a surprise to the climate community – though it was welcomed warmly. We’ve discussed the early climate model predictions a lot (including some from Manabe and his colleagues), and we’ve discussed detection and attribution of climate change as well, though with less explicit discussion of Hasselmann’s contribution. Needless to say these are big topics which have had many inputs from many scientists over the years.
But RC has a more attuned audience to these topics than most, and so it might be fun to dive into the details of their early work to see what has stood the test of time and what has not, and how that differs (if it does) from their colleagues and rivals at the time.
[Read more…] about A Nobel pursuitUnforced Variations: Oct 2021
Fall is here (in the northern hemisphere at least), along with articles about the impact of climate change on autumnal colors. LandSat9 successfully launched to continue an almost 50 year long series of remote sensing (since 1972!), and the World Economic Forum has proposed and Earth Operations Center to monitor greenhouse gases and climate change. Please stick to climate science topics, and remember that (most) other commenters are real people.
The definitive CO2/CH4 comparison post
There is a new push to reduce CH4 emissions as a possible quick ‘win-win’ for climate and air quality. To be clear this is an eminently sensible idea – as it has been for decades (remember the ‘Methane-to-markets’ initiative from the early 2000s?), but it inevitably brings forth a mish-mash of half-remembered, inappropriate or out-of-date comparisons between the impacts of carbon dioxide and methane. So this is an attempt to put all of that in context and provide a hopefully comprehensive guide to how, when, and why to properly compare the two greenhouse gases.
[Read more…] about The definitive CO2/CH4 comparison postForced responses: Sep 2021
A bimonthly open thread for discussions related to climate solutions. Note that open discussions of climate science are here. Possible topics of interest are the trial carbon-capture effort in Iceland and the discussions in the lead up to COP26. Please be constructive and substantive.
Unforced Variations: Sep 2021
This month’s open thread for climate science topics. Not sure about you, but we are still reading the details of the IPCC report. We are watching the unfolding hurricane season with trepidation, with particular concern related to the impacts of compound events (and not just those associated with climate), and anticipating another low, if not record, Arctic sea ice minimum.
PS. At some point this month we will be switching Internet service providers, so don’t be surprised if there are some oddities as we switch everything over.
Sea level in the IPCC 6th assessment report (AR6)
My top 3 impressions up-front:
- The sea level projections for the year 2100 have been adjusted upwards again.
- The IPCC has introduced a new high-end risk scenario, stating that a global rise “approaching 2 m by 2100 and 5 m by 2150 under a very high greenhouse gas emissions scenario cannot be ruled out due to deep uncertainty in ice sheet processes.”
- The IPCC gives more consideration to the large long-term sea-level rise beyond the year 2100.
And here is the key sea-level graphic from the Summary for Policy Makers:
This is a pretty clear illustration of how sea level starts to rise slowly; but in the long run, sea-level rise caused by fossil-fuel burning and deforestation in our generation could literally go off the chart and inundate many coastal cities and wipe entire island nations off the map. But first things first.
Observed Past Rise
Let’s dive a little deeper into the full report and start with the observed sea level change. Since 1901 sea level has risen by 20 cm, a rise unprecedented in at least 3,000 years (disclosure: I co-authored some of the research behind the latter conclusion).
Since 1900 the rise has greatly accelerated. During the most recent period analyzed, 2006-2018, it’s been rising at a rate of 3.7 mm/year – nearly three times as fast as during 1901-1971 (1.3 mm/year). The IPCC calls this a “robust acceleration (high confidence) of global mean sea level rise over the 20th century”, as did the SROCC in 2019.
The finding of sea-level acceleration is not new. The AR4 already concluded in 2007: “There is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th centuries.” And the AR5 found in 2013 that “there is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries, and it is likely that global mean sea level has accelerated since the early 1900’s.” (Which has not stopped “climate skeptics” from repeatedly claiming a lack of acceleration.)
The reason for earlier hedged wording by the IPCC was the possibility of natural decadal variability affecting the trend estimates, but the AR6 now concludes “that the main driver of the observed global mean sea-level rise since at least 1970 is very likely anthropogenic forcing”. That is the result of so-called “attribution studies” – attempts to differentiate with the help of a combination of data, models, pattern detection and statistics between all possible human-caused and natural factors in the observed changes. However, on the level of basic physical reasoning, it is of course a no-brainer that warming will cause land-ice to melt (and melt faster as it gets hotter) and ocean waters to expand, so sea-level rise is the inevitable result.
And there is this:
New observational evidence leads to an assessed sea level rise over the period 1901 to 2018 that is consistent with the sum of individual components contributing to sea level rise, including expansion due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers and ice sheets (high confidence).
IPCC AR6
That’s an important consistency check; the independent data add up to the overall observed rise.
The Future Until 2100
It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century in response to continued warming of the climate system.
IPCC AR6
By how much? That depends on our emissions and is shown in the following figure. The take-away message is: for high emissions we’d likely get close to a meter, sticking to the Paris agreement would cut that down to half a meter.
And how does that compare to the recent previous reports? Here is the comparison the IPCC shows:
If you look at the 2100 projections for the last three reports (AR5, SROCC, AR6) you can see that the numbers have increased each time – and remember that the AR5 numbers had already increased by ~60% compared to the AR4. This illustrates the fact that IPCC has been too “cautious” in the past (which is not a virtue in risk assessment), having to correct itself upward again and again (all the while “climate skeptics” try to paint the IPCC as “alarmist”, for want of any better arguments to play down the climate crisis).
Related to that are notable changes in grappling with uncertainty and risk. The IPCC is now showing very likely (5-95 percentile) as well as likely (17-83 percentile) ranges. In the AR5, it had made the rather ad-hoc argument that “global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from proces-based models”. So their likely range was actually the modelled very likely range.
The IPCC now splits the uncertainty into two types, hence the two different shadings in the uncertainty bars, in an attempt to also cover uncertainty in processes which we still cannot confidently model. They write:
Importantly, likely range projections do not include those ice-sheet-related processes whose quantification is highly uncertain or that are characterized by deep uncertainty. Higher amounts of global mean sea level rise before 2100 could be caused by earlier-than-projected disintegration of marine ice shelves, the abrupt, widespread onset of Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) and Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI) around Antarctica, and faster-than-projected changes in the surface mass balance and dynamical ice loss from Greenland. In a low-likelihood, high-impact storyline and a high CO2 emissions scenario, such processes could in combination contribute more than one additional meter of sea level rise by 2100.
Note that this uncertainty goes to one side: up. For estimating this uncertainty they use an expert survey as well as a smaller but more detailed structured expert judgement. I co-authored the survey (see also 7-minute video about it) with Ben Horton and others, as well as a predecessor survey published in 2014, and I am happy to see that the IPCC now includes this type of expert judgement to assess risks that can’t yet be modelled reliably, but cannot be just ignored either. In dealing with the climate crisis, it simply is not enough to consider what is likely to happen – it is even more important to understand what the risks are.
Think about it: If someone builds a nuclear facility near to your house, would you be satisfied with knowing that it is “likely” to work well (say, 83% certain)? Or would you like to know about a few percent chance that it could blow up like Chernobyl in your lifetime?
With the high-end risk scenarios, the IPCC is catching up with other assessments such as the US National Climate Assessment of 2017, which already showed a “high” scenario of 2 meters and an “extreme” scenario of 2.5 meters of rise by 2100.
The Long Term Future
One of the headline statements of the AR6 is:
Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level.
IPCC AR6
That’s because huge ice sheets take a long time to melt in a warmer climate, and the ocean waters take a long time to warm up as you go further down, away from the surface. So by what we are doing now in the next couple of decades we determine the rate and amount of sea-level rise for millennia to come, condemning many generations to continually changing coastlines and forcing them to abandon many coastal cities, large and small. That we cannot turn this back is the reason why the precautionary principle should be applied to the climate crisis.
Just look at the ranges expected by the year 2300, in the right-hand panel of the first image above. Even in the blue mitigation scenario, which limits warming to well below 2 °C, our descendants may well have to deal with 2-3 meters of sea-level rise, which would be catastrophic for the people living at the world’s coastlines. Not only would it be extremely hard and costly – if possible at all – to defend cities like New York during a storm surge with a so much higher sea level. We would see massive coastal erosion happening all around. And remember that “nuisance flooding” is already causing real problems after just 20 cm of sea-level rise, for example along the eastern seaboard of the US!
At least with this Paris scenario and a good portion of sheer luck, we may get away with less than a meter rise. But with further unmitigated increase in emissions, a desastrous 2 meter rise is about as likely as an utterly devastating 7 meter rise. What would our descendants think we were doing?