[TheClimate.Vote] December 26 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 26, 2020*/

[2 min video - it changes]
*Andrea Dutton PhD: Sea Level Rise - How Fast?*
Dec 25, 2020
greenmanbucket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHkeuOUSyc



[but the pre-threshold is now]
*WE’LL CROSS THE GLOBAL WARMING THRESHOLD IN 6-21 YEARS*
DECEMBER 23RD, 2020
POSTED BY SHIRLEY CARDENAS-MCGILL
The threshold for dangerous global warming will likely be crossed 
between 2027 and 2042, research indicates.

That’s a much narrower window than the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change’s estimate of between now and 2052.

In a study published in Climate Dynamics, researchers introduce a new 
and more precise way to project the Earth’s temperature. Based on 
historical data, it considerably reduces uncertainties compared to 
previous approaches.

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using 
climate models for decades. These models play an important role in 
understanding the Earth’s climate and how it will likely change. But how 
accurate are they?

Climate models are mathematical simulations of different factors that 
interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as the atmosphere, ocean, ice, 
land surface, and the sun. While they are based on the best 
understanding of the Earth’s systems available, when it comes to 
forecasting the future, uncertainties remain.

CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY
“Climate skeptics have argued that global warming projections are 
unreliable because they depend on faulty supercomputer models. While 
these criticisms are unwarranted, they underscore the need for 
independent and different approaches to predicting future warming,” says 
coauthor Bruno Tremblay, a professor in the department of atmospheric 
and oceanic sciences at McGill University.

Until now, wide ranges in overall temperature projections have made it 
difficult to pinpoint outcomes in different mitigation scenarios. For 
instance, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are doubled, the General 
Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC), predict a very likely global average temperature increase 
between 1.9 and 4.5 degrees C—a vast range covering moderate climate 
changes on the lower end, and catastrophic ones on the other.

“Our new approach to projecting the Earth’s temperature is based on 
historical climate data, rather than the theoretical relationships that 
are imperfectly captured by the GCMs. Our approach allows climate 
sensitivity and its uncertainty to be estimated from direct observations 
with few assumptions,” says coauthor Raphaël Hébert of the 
Alfred-Wegener-Institut in Potsdam, Germany.

GLOBAL WARMING THRESHOLD
In the study, the researchers introduce the new Scaling Climate Response 
Function (SCRF) model to project the Earth’s temperature until 2100. 
Grounded in historical data, it reduces prediction uncertainties by 
about half, compared to the approach currently used by the IPCC.

In analyzing the results, the researchers found that we’ll likely cross 
threshold for dangerous warming (+1.5 C) between 2027 and 2042. This is 
a much narrower window than GCMs estimates of between now and 2052. On 
average, the researchers also found that expected warming was a little 
lower, by about 10 to 15%. They also find, however, that the “very 
likely warming ranges” of the SCRF were within those of the GCMs, giving 
the latter support.

“Now that governments have finally decided to act on climate change, we 
must avoid situations where leaders can claim that even the weakest 
policies can avert dangerous consequences,” says coauthor Shaun Lovejoy, 
a professor in the physics department at McGill University. “With our 
new climate model and its next generation improvements, there’s less 
wiggle room.”
https://www.futurity.org/global-warming-threshold-2492152-2/

- -

[original study]
*An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates 
and global projections to 2100*
*Abstract*
We directly exploit the stochasticity of the internal variability, and 
the linearity of the forced response to make global temperature 
projections based on historical data and a Green’s function, or Climate 
Response Function (CRF). To make the problem tractable, we take 
advantage of the temporal scaling symmetry to define a scaling CRF 
characterized by the scaling exponent H, which controls the long-range 
memory of the climate, i.e. how fast the system tends toward a 
steady-state, and an inner scale τ≈2   years below which the 
higher-frequency response is smoothed out. An aerosol scaling factor and 
a non-linear volcanic damping exponent were introduced to account for 
the large uncertainty in these forcings. We estimate the model and 
forcing parameters by Bayesian inference which allows us to analytically 
calculate the transient climate response and the equilibrium climate 
sensitivity as: 1.7+0.3−0.2  K and 2.4+1.3−0.6 K respectively (likely 
range). Projections to 2100 according to the RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 
scenarios yield warmings with respect to 1880–1910 of: 1.5+0.4−0.2K, 
2.3+0.7−0.5  K and 4.2+1.3−0.9  K. These projection estimates are lower 
than the ones based on a Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 
multi-model ensemble; more importantly, their uncertainties are smaller 
and only depend on historical temperature and forcing series. The key 
uncertainty is due to aerosol forcings; we find a modern (2005) forcing 
value of [−1.0,−0.3]Wm−2 (90 % confidence interval) with median at 
−0.7Wm−2. Projecting to 2100, we find that to keep the warming below 1.5 
K, future emissions must undergo cuts similar to RCP 2.6 for which the 
probability to remain under 1.5 K is 48 %. RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5-like 
futures overshoot with very high probability.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x



[opinion Keep looking]
Kate Aronoff - December 24, 2020
*Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Savior*
The promise of negative emissions is baked into most “net zero” pledges. 
But putting that into practice is easier said than done...
- -
Talking up carbon capture is good for fossil fuel companies—it makes the 
next few decades look profitable for them. Companies from ExxonMobil to 
Shell to Occidental Petroleum have all boasted about investments in 
carbon capture while continuing to double down on their core business 
model of finding and digging up as much oil and gas as possible. Whether 
they’re making meaningful investments in carbon capture is a different 
matter entirely. Exxon recently nixed its $1 billion investment to store 
carbon under a gas operation it owns in Wyoming. It moved ahead with a 
$9 billion expansion of its crude oil drilling operations off the coast 
of Guyana. All the while, Exxon, like its competitors, continues to 
advertise its token investments in carbon capture as proof that they’ve 
enlisted in good faith in the climate fight, despite all evidence to the 
contrary...
- -
The approach is eerily reminiscent of the climate denial playbook. When 
companies like Exxon and General Motors funded climate denial, the 
effect wasn’t to convince the world that more carbon dioxide is a good 
thing or that the earth just naturally gets really hot sometimes, but it 
was to muddy the waters, casting enough doubt on the scientific 
consensus to stymie policymaking that might threaten their profits. Now, 
such companies’ lavish advertising budgets are being used to spread a 
new kind of doubt in the face of a new consensus about how to deal with 
that problem: Phase out fossil fuel use as quickly as possible while 
phasing in renewables. Negative emissions are one among several vague 
talking points being thrown out by polluters to suggest that isn’t 
necessary. What if we could suck up a whole lot of carbon dioxide at 
some point? What if the timeline for decarbonization could be pushed 
back as a result? The jury’s still out on how much carbon dioxide we can 
take out of the atmosphere after 2050, they argue. And renewables can’t 
yet meet the world’s energy needs. So it’s probably safest to let us 
keep making the earth hotter while our best researchers work to find a 
technological fix to this problem that’s just around the corner.

Here’s the sticky bit: Negative emissions are needed if the world’s 
governments are indeed serious about keeping warming to “well below” 2 
degrees Celsius, per the text of the Paris Agreement. Anything higher 
than 1.5 degrees may well amount to a death sentence for potentially 
millions across the global south, and the lack of zero-carbon 
alternatives on offer in big sectors of the economy mean it’d be all too 
possible to sail past that threshold in the decades to come. Carbon 
capture is necessary. But fossil fuel executives are the last people who 
should get to define how much of it’s needed, what it should look like, 
and who benefits...
- -
Carbon capture, or negative emissions, can mean many different things. 
So-called “natural climate solutions” involve things like tree planting, 
grassland and wetland restoration, or (controversially) 
agriculture-based soil sequestration. The Green New Deal resolution 
introduced to Congress last year backed this approach, citing the need 
for “removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing 
pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech 
solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation 
and afforestation.” But there are other approaches, too. Among the most 
frequently invoked in climate modeling is Bioenergy with Carbon Capture 
and Storage, or BECCS. This relies on harvesting new carbon-sucking 
crops like switchgrass for fuel, then capturing the resulting emissions 
through machines that filter out emissions from where the power is 
generated. And in direct air capture, machines that look like air 
conditioners suck carbon down from the sky and inject it into rock 
formations or soft drinks, among other uses...
- -
“Carbon removal in particular is one of the most direct forms of climate 
reparations,” he added. “Global north countries taking on carbon removal 
is obviously not exhaustive of their responsibilities from a justice 
perspective, but in a lot of ways is the most direct thing they can do 
conceptually speaking.” A more just approach would be for global north 
countries to fund carbon removal and site much of it in their own 
backyards...
- -
But while less land-use intensive, direct-air capture technologies have 
their own feasibility and affordability issues. For one, they depend on 
an enormous amount of electricity; if the grid powering DAC is still 
carbon-intensive, its carbon savings look a lot more ambiguous. And if 
such technologies are patented by private companies, onerous 
intellectual property statutes could make it virtually impossible for 
them to proliferate widely, particularly to low- and middle-income 
countries that lack the capacity to pay the rents that might be demanded 
by patent holders. Wealthy countries’ recent refusals to waive 
intellectual property rights for publicly funded Covid-19 vaccines, 
Táíwò notes, could offer a preview for how IP rules may stymie a new 
generation of life-saving technologies.

True negative emissions—mostly, capturing carbon and keeping it 
buried—aren’t neatly compatible with the profit motive. Even if captured 
carbon is used to make building materials, acknowledging that negative 
emissions are critical to ward off climate catastrophe means making sure 
that installing them quickly doesn’t depend on their ability to turn a 
profit. Lavishing private companies with subsidies and tax incentives, 
that is, will only go so far. Instead, we might need to treat carbon 
like sewage, as science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson recently 
proposed: an essential but basically boring public service that nobody 
expects to get rich off of unless there’s something illicit happening.

As fossil fuel companies look to capture the field of captured carbon 
with schemes for EOR and pernicious academic funding, there’s a dire 
need for democratic governance models for carbon dioxide removal that 
prioritize equity and emissions reductions over shareholders. 
Environmental sociologist Holly Jean Buck argues that carbon capture 
could fall under the mandate of nationalized fossil fuel companies, 
which could keep union workers on the payroll as they build out the vast 
amount of infrastructure needed to store carbon. As the One Earth paper 
coauthored by Buck also notes, “We might need to stretch our 
imaginations to envision economic and political futures in which CDR 
fits into the world we want rather than delaying or undermining it.”

The proliferation of net-zero plans in 2020 is clearly good news insofar 
as it indicates that governments are now taking the climate crisis more 
seriously. But they also belie the need for concrete plans to reduce 
emissions much sooner. “The scenarios are performative in a sense that 
they show us one way but not all the ways to 1.5 or 2 degrees,” Glen 
Peters explained. Earlier climate models, he said, were designed around 
stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, say around 450 
or 550 parts per million. “But many models couldn’t get to this,” he 
said. “So what they did is change that target to only apply in 2100, so 
you could go over and come back down. All the models could do this if 
they used BECCS.” Such models can be useful reference points but don’t 
need to dictate what’s possible.
If stabilizing temperatures at “well below” 2 degrees is the goal, the 
task for the next decade at least is straightforward: electrify 
everything, build lots of renewables, and rapidly phase out fossil 
fuels. Federal research into how to capture carbon at scale is a 
necessary complement to reducing the amount of work those processes will 
have to do. But carbon capture will always be a complement—never a 
substitute.
Kate Aronoff @KateAronoff
https://newrepublic.com/article/160754/carbon-capture-not-climate-savior


[recommendations]
*The Center for Media and Democracy, *a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit, 
is a nationally recognized watchdog group that has been researching and 
exposing the undue influence of powerful special interests on our 
democracy for 25 years. Our in-depth, award-winning investigations and 
exposés have pulled the curtain back on numerous cases of public 
corruption and corporate manipulation of public policy, elections, and 
the media, and our publicly available research has made CMD a go-to 
source for thousands of journalists, educators, reform groups, and 
citizen activists who are working to build a more sustainable future and 
more just society.

CMD’s investigations have ignited national conversations on money in 
politics and the distortion of public policy and democracy at every 
level of government and in every region of the country.  We believe in 
the public’s right to know how government operates, how powerful 
interests influence our democracy, and the true motivations for official 
actions. To bring that influence to light, CMD files hundreds of freedom 
of information requests every year and takes legal action to both obtain 
public records and bring violations of anti-corruption laws to the 
attention of regulators. CMD is reader-supported. Please make your 
tax-deductible gift today. Thank you!
https://centerformediaanddemocracy.salsalabs.org/donate/index.html
- -
https://action.mediamatters.org/secure/donate?ms=eoy2020



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - December 26, 2015 *

The New York Times reports:
"Oil money no longer pays the bills [in Alaska].

"The governor, facing a profound fiscal crisis, has proposed the 
imposition of a personal income tax for the first time in 35 years. 
State lawmakers, who recently moved into a palatial new office building 
here, where they work when not toiling in the far-off Capitol in Juneau, 
are now seeking less costly digs.

"And a state budget that was a point of Alaskan pride — and envy from 
around the nation — lies in tatters as revenue that flowed from selling 
crude oil from Prudhoe Bay over the past four decades has been swept away.

"With oil prices down along with oil production, the state is facing an 
Alaska-size shortfall: Two-thirds of the revenue needed to cover this 
year’s $5.2 billion state budget cannot be collected.

"Many Alaskans are not old enough to recall times this bad. This is the 
nation’s least-taxed state, where oil royalties and energy taxes once 
paid for 90 percent of state functions. Oil money was so plentiful that 
residents received annual dividend checks from a state savings fund that 
could total more than $8,000 for a family of four — arriving each 
autumn, as predictable as the first snowfall.

"Kevin Meyer, president of the Alaska Senate, spoke to members of the 
Resource Development Council about the budget. Mr. Meyer, a Republican 
who is also an employee of the oil giant ConocoPhillips, said he thought 
deeper cuts were still necessary.

"Gov. Bill Walker, an independent, is proposing to scale back those 
dividends as he seeks to get Alaska back on a stable financial footing 
with less dependence on oil. 'It will move us back to where we were 
before,' he said in an interview. 'We can do it.'

"Every resource-dependent corner of the globe is in stress these days as 
commodity prices from copper to soybeans have collapsed to multiyear 
lows. States like Texas and Louisiana are also grappling with the oil 
downturn, but Alaska’s situation is unique."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/as-oil-money-melts-alaska-mulls-first-income-tax-in-35-years.html


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes. 
Messages have no tracking software.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20201226/ebd4cf58/attachment.html>