Happy holidays and all the best for the new year from all of us here at Climate Shifts!
The Australian newspaper published a contentious article titled ‘How the reef became blue again‘ last weekend, discussing the ‘resilience’ of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change. On a whole the article did a pretty good job in getting the scientific facts correct, but the debate and ensuing discussion is full of rhetoric deliberately misleading.
The loss of the 3000 prize reefs collectively known as the Great Barrier Reef is feared by some scientists but research shows their living coral are far more diverse and resilient than they’ve been given credit for.
True. We (Guillermo Diaz-Pullido and a group of scientists from the University of Queensland, James Cook University, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science) published a paper in the journal PLoS ONE titled “Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery” (read it here, the journal is open access). In this we concluded “Our study provides a key example of the doom and boom of a highly resilient reef, and new insights into the variability and mechanisms of reef resilience under rapid climate change”
The volume of sediment washing on to the reef is said to have increased fivefold during the past 150 years.
Until recently this was rated as a prime threat to its existence.
Now it’s climate change, front and centre. One way or another global warming will be the death of the reef, the alarmists say. On the more extreme predictions the reef could become history within the next quarter of a century.
False. The whole “until recently…” is deliberately misleading and makes scientists sound flippant. Sediment run-off is still a prime threat to the inshore reef. Studies have shown that there has been an 8-10 fold increase in sediment loading since European settlement of the QLD coastline in the late 19th century, and recent increases in nutrients and herbicides are a considerable cause for concern. Whilst the impacts of climate change are more recent, this doesn’t make the impact of anthropogenic runoff any less of a ‘prime threat’. Indeed, recent research suggests that by actively improving water quality through better management of the reef and catchments at a regional scale, we can actually increase the survival of inshore reefs to coral bleaching events.
In the Keppels, however, an inconvenient truth has emerged to puncture the gloom and doom.
Inconvenient to whom? If you asked ANY marine biologist, this is great news. This is exactly how the media (especially The Australian newspaper) make deliberate efforts to portray scientists as being ‘gloom mongers’, and by calling this an ‘inconvenient truth’ pretends that there is a GREAT CONTROVERSY, when in reality there isn’t that much disagreement at all. Never let the truth get in the way of journalistic creativity.
After bleaching to an unprecedented extent in 2006 — when an estimated 35 per cent of corals were killed, “like a white blanket was thrown over them”, according to Berkelmans — the Keppel reefs have bounced back to an extent that has stunned and delighted him, exciting hope that the reef as a whole may be more resilient to climate change than was thought.
“In 2006, we basically saw the [Keppel] corals acclimatise before our eyes,” says Berkelmans, conducting Inquirer on a tour of what he calls his lab rat reefs. “About 95 per cent of the corals were affected, and we think just over a third died, which was a lot more than we had seen before.
“What surprised us — stunned us, really — is how strongly they have come back. It’s not everywhere . . . we’ve still got reefs struggling. But, generally, you would have to say the coral cover is as good, if not better in places, [as] it was prior to bleaching in 2006, and that has caused us to do a lot of thinking and work on how the corals in the Keppels have coped with bleaching events.”
It surprised me and many other scientists, too. A few people at the time tried to call foul on Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on HOW HE GOT IT ALL WRONG without actually noticing he was a co-author on the Keppells PLoS ONE paper with Ray Berklemens. So far, no objections.
Like those elsewhere in the vast expanse of the GBR, the Keppel corals live in “an extremely narrow window of temperature tolerance”, he says. They will stress and start to bleach if the water temperature falls below 18C or exceeds 28.5C; corals farther north on the reef, off Townsville, say, cheerfully cope with warm water that would kill their Keppel cousins.
Berkelmans says coral is one of the planet’s perfect creations: its living heart, a polyp distantly related to jellyfish, is encased in a skeleton of calcium carbonate, which is the building block of the reef. Photosynthesising algae called zooxanthellae live within each coral, giving it colour and food from sunlight. In return, the algae feast on nitrogen waste from the coral.
Unfortunately, this exquisite symbiosis can break down if coral comes under stress, as happens when water temperature moves outside the coral’s tolerance range. Instead of producing life-sustaining sugars, the zooxanthellae excrete toxins. In a process scientists don’t fully understand, the algae is expelled, turning the reef from a wonder world that glows with every colour of the rainbow under light to a wintry tract of white and dying coral.
So far, so good. It’s a little misleading to suggest that scientists don’t ‘fully understand’ bleaching – we have a pretty good grip on the mechanisms and the causes.
This happened in the Keppels in 1998, when an estimated half of the Great Barrier Reef was hit by a worldwide coral bleaching event linked to an El Nino episode (during which much of the tropical Pacific becomes unusually warm). Another mass bleaching took place four years later, affecting more than 60 per cent of the reef, and killing perhaps 5 per cent of corals. The 2006 bleaching was largely localised to the reefs off central Queensland, but was by far the worst Berkelmans had seen.
In the doldrums of summer the ocean temperature hit 30C in the Keppels and stayed there day after day through late January and February 2006, with little cloud cover or wind to temper lethal heating of the reef shallows. About 95 per cent of the corals bleached, one-third of which died. “Everything was just so bone white, it was awful to see . . . just like someone had thrown a white blanket over the reef and smothered it,” the researcher recalls.
Three years on, the picture couldn’t be more different. True, the reef off North Keppel Island is a long way from recovered. Much of the coral that survived bleaching is stricken by disease or choked by brown algae. But this is an exception to the miracle that has taken place beneath these waters.
Calling this a ‘miracle’ is possibly stretching the truth a little, but still – so far, so good.
Parts of Miall Reef, 15 bone-jarring minutes by launch west of Great Keppel Island, have achieved 100 per cent coral cover. Blue and gold damsel fish dart between the thriving staghorn and plate corals; on the sandy bottom, fat parrot fish are too busy gobbling algae to worry about the presence of snorklers.
“We were tremendously surprised that the Keppels came back so well,” Berkelmans says after we climb back into the boat. “To look at it, you wouldn’t know that 2006 happened.”
As it turns out, there is another crucial window for coral affected by bleaching. Those that expel their zooxanthellae have a narrow opening to recolonise with new, temperature-resistant algae before succumbing. In the Keppels in 2006, Berkelmans and his team noticed that the dominant strain of zooxanthellae changed from light and heat-sensitive type C2, to more robust types D and C1.
This, he believes, equipped the corals to face water temperatures up to 1.5 degrees higher than their usual tolerance. “It means the difference in being able to cope with a summer like 2006 or bleaching and dying,” he says. “In fact, in 2006 we were noticing corals of the same species side by side; one was bleached bone white and the other was normally pigmented.
“One was stressed to the max and the other one was perfectly normally pigmented . . . for the corals that survived, the majority of them had basically expelled the less tolerant type of zooxanthellae and the remaining tolerant zooxanthellae multiplied and reoccupied the space in the coral tissues. It happened virtually before our eyes.”
Could this process be repeated elsewhere on the reef? That is the question, Berkelmans agrees. In the past 60 years, the baseline water temperature has increased by 0.6 of a degree, the scientist says, with most of that happening in the time he has been studying the reef. If the doomsayers are to be believed, the reef as we know it will be gone by the time the cumulative temperature gain reaches one degree in 2050.
Calling scientists “doomsayers” is simply poor journalism. Ray Berkelmans and a group of scientists have done some great work in the Keppells documenting shifts in coral community structure and symbiont shuffling during bleaching events. His research shows some local scale acclimation to increased temperatures, which is great. Whether the Keppells are an exception being such a low latitutude and low diversity inshore reef system is the question – how applicable are these findings to other reef areas?
Either way, you would be hard pushed to find a scientist who doesn’t perceive this as great news – the Australian is trying it’s best to create controversy out of thin air.
Yet contrary to popular belief, coral bleaching is episodic rather than chronic; hardly any would exist on the reef right now, Berkelmans says. That could change with breathtaking speed if conditions become conducive to another mass bleaching event, as is anticipated later this summer when a newly formed El Nino weather pattern intensifies, giving rise to more stifling doldrums days.
Scientists are already looking at the possibility of transplanting corals from heat-resistant colonies in the reef’s north to more vulnerable reaches. Berkelmans says the Keppels experience shows the reef can adjust to climate change, but whether this was a local phenomenon or one with wider implications for the reef remains to be seen.
So far, the controversy is kept to a minimum and the science surprisingly accurate. Adaption is a good thing, but as Ove pointed out before, the degree to which corals can adapt is critical:
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a leading coral biologist at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, says the findings are very interesting, in that they demonstrate a way in which corals can acclimatise to warmer temperatures – to an extent. However, he is cautious about what the results might mean in the long run, as type D provides the coral with only about an extra 1 to 1.5 °C of heat tolerance.
“After changing to D, corals don’t really have any other options – and the benefits of D will eventually be overwhelmed by climate warming,” he says.
So – how to make this article more more sensational and sell more newspapers? Here goes:
When pressed, he says he is more optimistic about the reef’s medium-term prospects, especially in inshore areas such as the Keppels. “People say the reef is dying. Well, the Great Barrier Reef is 2000km long, with 3000 reefs. Are you telling me all of it is going to die? “I don’t think so,” Berkelmans says. “There are some areas that are naturally more resilient than others, there are some areas that see warmer temperatures less frequently because of favourable oceanography or other factors . . . we might lose species, and we might lose them at many reefs. The reef would look vastly different, but the reef would still be there. I don’t think there is any doubt about that.”
It seems that people have picked up on “Are you telling me all of it is going to die? I don’t think so” and ignored every other work in the paragraph: “The reef would look vastly different, but the reef would still be there. I don’t think there is any doubt about that“. To an extent I agree – the entire Great Barrier Reef won’t disappear overnight, but impact of losing entire reefs, species and biodiversity due to climate change will be huge. Here is a figure from Hoegh-Guldberg et al (2007) showing extant examples of reefs from the Great Barrier Reef that are used as analogs for the ecological structures anticipated for 375ppm, 450-500ppm and >500ppm:
To me, the debate isn’t whether the reef will “die entirely”, but that the entire reef will look vastly different under projected climate change – the reef isn’t magically going to become blue again. It’s hard to disagree with the conclusions of Hoegh-Guldberg et al (2007), who state that: “Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse”
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman Russell Reichelt agrees the reef is generally in “robust good health”. Without minimising the threat of climate change, he says it is no accident that the reef is in better condition than any other reef in the world.
“That’s because it is largely offshore and there’s no Manila or Jakarta sitting beside it,” explains Reichelt, a marine scientist by training. “We don’t have dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, we have the resources of a developed country to put in place lines of protection . . . I suppose what I am saying is the reef has a lot going for it, despite the challenges ahead.”
Whilst Reichelt is correct in saying that there is no dynamite or cyanide fishing, the science doesn’t seem to support his observations of the reef being in “robust good health”. Comparing the GBR to the Phillipines and suggesting that we are managing our reefs better than they are is possibly misleading: a paper published in PLoS ONE by John Bruno and Elizbeth Selig found quite the opposite:
“…in 2003, coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef, considered the “best-managed” and “one of the most ‘pristine’ coral reefs in the world”, was not significantly greater than on reefs in the Philippines and other subregions that are often thought to be highly threatened and poorly managed”
Indeed, judging by the declines in coral cover over a 20 year period (see the graph below), combined with with the GBR-wide decline in coral growth reported last year, it’s hard to suggest that the GBR is in ‘robust good health’.
The opposing scientific view is bleak. Before leaving for Copenhagen, Queensland University’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg renewed his warning that existing generations of Australians would be the last to experience the reef in all its glory: the one to two degree water temperature rise forecast by the end of the century, in the absence of big cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, sounded the death knell for most corals, he said.
His concern is echoed by Charlie Veron, a former chief scientist with Australian Institute of Marine Science. Veron worked on the latest Reef Outlook Report for the marine park authority, which found that atmospheric carbon dioxide will have to be held under 400 parts per million if important animal species and corals on the reef are to have a fighting chance against climate change. The latest measured level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 387ppm.
Were it to hit 450ppm, an emissions target publicly supported on several occasions by Rudd, then it’s all over for the reef, according to the September Reef Outlook Report. “The result will be widespread destruction of coral communities, with a few persisting in shaded, turbid waters or at depth,” it found. Vernon has said emissions will reach that level by 2035 unless something drastic is done. Coral reefs would become “the world’s first global ecosystem to collapse”, he told London newspaper The Times earlier this year. In July, the Zoological Society of London, the Royal Society and International Program on the State of the Ocean issued a joint statement warning that a mid-century extinction of coral reefs was inevitable.
At this point it’s wise to say that this isn’t really an ‘opposing view’ rather than a consensus view.
How times change. Hoegh-Guldberg was howled down in the late 1990s when he started to talk about the risk of the reef being lost. Now it’s the turn of Peter Ridd, a professor of physics at Townsville’s James Cook University, to defy the scientific orthodoxy and question whether coral bleaching is all it is cracked up to be. “My general view is that the threats and supposed damage to the reef are greatly exaggerated,” he says.
Australia ‘loves the underdog‘, so to speak. The problem with Peter Ridd’s attempt to ‘defy scientific orthodoxy’ is that he doesn’t have much science to back up his opinion or ‘general view’.
Ridd works in JCU’s Marine Geographical Laboratory and has done extensive work on the effect on the reef of sediment and nutrient-packed run-off from the mainland, which he also rates as overstated. He accepts the baseline water temperature has increased on the reef and this is a result of climate change, but not necessarily that it is human-induced.
Whilst Ridd has some impressive publications, there is nothing there that shows that the effect of sediment and nutrient run-off from the land on nearshore coral reefs is ‘overstated’.
As for coral bleaching, Ridd points to Berkelmans’s research. “It’s difficult to see why such a small increase in temperature, given that these corals grow in much higher temperatures elsewhere, is going to make that much difference,” he says.
Ocean acidification is another matter, however. This lesser-known product of climate change is a greater danger to the reef by Ridd’s assessment. It happens as the ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, altering its pH value. Although surface sea temperatures are rising fastest in tropical regions, the threat of acidification comes from the higher latitudes, where the colder water takes in CO2 more easily.
The theory is that when atmospheric CO2 reaches between 480ppm and 500ppm, the warmer water lapping coral reefs will cease to be a barrier to acidification: even a small change is thought to spell trouble for calcifying organisms such as corals, making it more difficult for them to make the skeleton structures that in turn build reefs.
“Ten years ago, I was told that the coral was going to die from sediment, and we have proved that is complete rubbish,” Ridd says. “They are saying that pesticides are a problem, but when you look at the latest data that is a load of rubbish. They are saying that bleaching is the end of the world, but when you look into it, that is a highly dubious proposition.
Nobody has said that ‘bleaching will be the end of the world’ – besides which, Ridd is yet to provide any evidence that this is a ‘highly dubious proposition’.
“So when something comes along like the calcification problem, you are sort of left with this wolf story . . . they are crying wolf all the time . . . and it is very difficult for the public to have confidence in what they are saying.”
As far as I see it, from this article, two things make it difficult for the public to have confidence: first, here is a scientist who is attempting to ‘defy the scientific orthodoxy’ based upon opinions rather than any actual evidence. Second, here is an article that is deliberately trying to push this into a bipartisan issue of ‘doomsayers’ vs ‘iconoclasts’ – which couldn’t be any further from the truth.
Ridd and Berkelmans cross paths in Townsville from time to time and maintain a spirited banter on what climate change means for the reef.
On a glorious day such as this in the Keppels, with a breeze on your face and the sun out, the water cool and sparkling, the coral beneath the sea dense and teeming with fish, it is certainly difficult to believe that so much beauty could readily be destroyed.
It’s hard to argue against rhetoric like this – the author may find this hard to believe, but it doesn’t mean that the proposition is in any way less reasonable because of this.
Berkelmans cautions, however, the doldrums days are never far away. The increase in the baseline water temperature of reef waters, confirmed by maritime records dating back to the 1870s and separately by coral core sampling, means the difference between a regulation summer and a bleaching season is narrowing, increasing the likelihood of another mass coral kill. It was forecast to happen last summer until a heavy wet season intervened, followed by only the second category five cyclone recorded on the reef. For now, the signs are ominous for a bleaching event in late January or February next year.
Berkelmans says there are signs the long-term Pacific Decadal Oscillation weather pattern is entering a cooling phase, and he hopes that will help when the crunch comes. But the reef cannot be expected to stay lucky forever. “If we get a few more weeks of this, then there will be trouble this summer,” he warns. “Theoretically we could avoid another bleaching event . . . for the next few years, but the chances are we won’t. The baseline is rising. Even if the variability stays the same, unfortunately we are going to see bleaching more and more frequently.”
And so continues the Australian newspaper’s war against science…
The issue of climate change in Australian politics is often akin to beating your head against a brick wall (see here, here and here for prime examples). Having said that, nothing beats the American political system when it comes to sheer willful ignorance. Prime example? Sarah Palin’s Twitter account. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up:
Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng
Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature’s ways.MUST b good stewards of God’s earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature
We have blogged a bit about the techniques and precision of atmospheric CO2 measurements (see here). Now a new space-based instrument, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), is enhancing our ability to measure CO2 concentration and to forecast it’s implications, including the feedback associated with increasing water vapor.
TEXAS A&M—Researchers studying climate now have a new tool at their disposal that yields daily global measurements of carbon dioxide and water vapor in a key part of Earth’s atmosphere.
The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft and confirm the mainstream scientific view that large changes in the climate are likely over the next century.
Moustafa Chahine, the instrument’s science team leader at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, unveiled the new measurements at a briefing on recent breakthroughs in greenhouse gas, weather, and climate research from AIRS at the recent American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
The new data have been extensively validated against both aircraft and ground-based observations. They give users daily and monthly measurements of the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere—the region of the atmosphere located between 5 and 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth’s surface and track its global transport.
Users can also access historical AIRS carbon dioxide data spanning the mission’s entire seven-plus years in orbit. The product represents the first-ever release of global daily carbon dioxide data that are based solely on observations.
One interesting findings and value of the AIRS data is that it is helping atmospheric scientists better understand (or confirm) the feedbacks between CO2, temperature and water vapor.
From John Cook @ SkepticalScience: Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it’s also a positive feedback – in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.
How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.
…scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.
“The argument that the scientific community does not understand water vapor is one of the most durable urban legends in the climate change debate,” says Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
“AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced by carbon dioxide will be greatly exacerbated—in fact, more than doubled—by water vapor.”
Dessler says that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as “feedbacks.” Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming.
AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.
“The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system,” Dessler adds.
Read the full story here
Coastal erosion is a growing problem related to AGW you don’t hear much about. Erosion, and habitat and property loss, is related to sea level rise, but can be compounded by other things such as changes in storm intensity and frequency and by fetch and exposure duration, which in the Arctic is increasing due to sea ice loss.
U. COLORADO—The combined effect of declining sea ice, warming seawater, and increased wave activity is causing the northern coastline of Alaska to erode by up to one-third the length of a football field each year.
Robert Anderson, associate professor of geological sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says the conditions have led to the steady retreat of 30 to 45 feet a year of the 12-foot-high bluffs.
The bluffs are actually frozen blocks of silt and peat containing 50 to 80 percent ice—which are toppled into the Beaufort Sea during the summer months by a combination of large waves pounding the shoreline and warm seawater melting the base of the bluffs.
Once the blocks have fallen, the coastal seawater melts them in a matter of days, sweeping the silty material out to sea.
The problem is caused by several factors, including increased erosion along the Alaskan coastline due to longer ice-free summer conditions and warmer seawater bathing the coast, Anderson says.
The third potential factor is that the longer the sea ice is detached from the coastline, the further out to sea the sea-ice edge will be.
This open-ocean distance between the sea ice and the shore, known as the “fetch,” increases both the energy of waves crashing into the coast and the height to which warm seawater can come into contact with the frozen bluffs.
“What we are seeing now is a triple whammy effect,” Anderson says.
“Since the summer Arctic sea ice cover continues to decline and Arctic air and sea temperatures continue to rise, we really don’t see any prospect for this process ending.
Read the full story on Futurity here
During the last interglacial period ~ 125,000 years ago, sea level was roughly 6 m higher than today. Evidence of this can be seen throughout the Caribbean, where 125,000 year old fossil coral reefs form much of the shoreline (see this image below). This was presumably because temp. was higher during that period. When they were alive, these reefs were under 3-5 m of water (at least). You can still easily identify the coral species of the fossils and thus estimate the depth that section of reef must have been at based on the coral assemblages current depth profile.
A new study just published in Nature puts this into a probabilistic context with some smarty-smart stats and geo-chrono techniques.
PRINCETON—The planet’s polar ice sheets are vulnerable to large-scale melting even under moderate global warming scenarios. Such melting would lead to a large and relatively rapid rise in global sea level, submerging many coastal areas.
That finding is based on new analysis of the geological record of the Earth’s sea level, carried out by scientists at Princeton and Harvard universities and published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature.
The researchers employed a novel statistical approach that reveals an additional 2 degrees of global warming could commit the planet to 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) of long-term sea level rise.
This rise would inundate low-lying coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people now reside. It would permanently submerge New Orleans and other parts of southern Louisiana, much of southern Florida and other parts of the U.S. East Coast, much of Bangladesh, and most of the Netherlands, unless unprecedented and expensive coastal protection were undertaken.
And while the researchers’ findings indicate that such a rise would likely take centuries to complete, if emissions of greenhouse gases are not abated, the planet could be committed during this century to a level of warming sufficient to trigger this outcome.
read the full article on Futurity here
read the press release here
see the paper in Nature here
From Nature: With polar temperatures ~3–5 °C warmer than today, the last interglacial stage (~125 kyr ago) serves as a partial analogue for 1–2 °C global warming scenarios. Geological records from several sites indicate that local sea levels during the last interglacial were higher than today, but because local sea levels differ from global sea level, accurately reconstructing past global sea level requires an integrated analysis of globally distributed data sets. Here we present an extensive compilation of local sea level indicators and a statistical approach for estimating global sea level, local sea levels, ice sheet volumes and their associated uncertainties. We find a 95% probability that global sea level peaked at least 6.6 m higher than today during the last interglacial; it is likely (67% probability) to have exceeded 8.0 m but is unlikely (33% probability) to have exceeded 9.4 m. When global sea level was close to its current level (≥-10 m), the millennial average rate of global sea level rise is very likely to have exceeded 5.6 m kyr-1 but is unlikely to have exceeded 9.2 m kyr-1. Our analysis extends previous last interglacial sea level studies by integrating literature observations within a probabilistic framework that accounts for the physics of sea level change. The results highlight the long-term vulnerability of ice sheets to even relatively low levels of sustained global warming.
This week I travelled to Europe for an extended break (and offset my travel). From a climate change perspective what met me was such a breath of fresh-air. I’ve temporarily left Australia, a nation whose politics are torn apart by an inward looking, big business dominated, unrepresentative, and non-scientific political system whose rejection of the Emissions Trading Scheme only serves to remind me of the rejection of Darwin’s ‘then’ theory of evolution by Church of England back in 1860.
Although Europe is haemorrhaging in a barrage of disgusting neo-facism fronted by the alarming views and representations of characters such as Nick Griffin their exists so much development of opinion, media comment and personal action that can only be commended. Europe is far from perfect, but a feeling that even the most conservative right wing media outlets are mostly pushing an agenda of climate change as fact is refreshing.
I’ve witnessed competitions by employers keen to be have the greenest corporate car fleet, every conceivable renewable energy source being explored as a genuine potential power plant, and the average Joe in the street keen to do their bit by buying green electricity, and increasing recycling to 90% in some locations, and seeing low carbon economies as business opportunities. Europe is full of problems, its economies are in tatters, unemployment is high, and neo-facism is on the march. O2 emissions are enormous and car dependency is huge. But looking beyond this are the small but clear green roots of development towards a low carbon economy. If Europe can take such a path at a time of severe economic downturn then why must Australia be hesitant?
As my mother expressed yesterday: “these are not issues of economics or lifestyle, they’re about the future prosperity and happiness of our very own children and grand children. Inaction by politicians and governments about such an issue that will define our generation bring me to tears”.
The politicians of Australia need to remember that they are elected to undertake a mandate. Australia may be presented as a nation of climate sceptics by its politicians, its media, and its big business, but in 2007 the people democratically elected the Labor government with a mandate to join the Kyoto treaty and develop an ETS. The time is right for some politicians to respect the democratic will of the people and help introduce legislation intended to progress Australia towards that low carbon economy that is being developed in other regions of the World.
After years of preparation and two weeks of intense negotiators among thousands, the text of the Copenhagen Accord could be perceived as a little underwhelming. Five pages with nothing strictly binding. After reading it carefully, however, there are some tracks in the sand as far as the future superhighway to a low emission future.
Firstly, the Accord (hence all countries present in Copenhagen) acknowledges that climate change is “one of the greatest challenges of our time” … “the scientific view that the increase in global temperatures should be below 2°C”. Given final acceptance, this is a stunning outcome that contrasts with previous decades of denial and frustration.
Secondly, the Accord recognises “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius”.
Again, remarkable given the recent past.
Thirdly, the Accord recognises that ” developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.”
Nice to see the first acknowledgements by developed countries of their collective responsibility as regards the more vulnerable developing countries.
The accord also outlines in broad details where, when and when not verification is appropriate to ensure that “national sovereignty is respected.” There is even mention of long-term targets of 1.5°C and the need to support REDD-plus and other important initiatives.
In many ways, the judgement of whether or not COP15 was successful depends very much on expectations at the beginning.
For example, if success is defined as achieving a broad, science-based and equitable treaty signed in Copenhagen, then COP15 is an abject failure. On the other hand, if the performance of COP15 is measured relative to progress even five years ago (remember the ‘ostrich days’ of Howard and Bush?), then it has been an outrageous success. However, that wouldn’t be hard to beat. The important thing is to measure it relative to where we need to go.
And in that regard, we have a long way to go. This said, the success of Copenhagen will be judged on what happens post-Copenhagen. My children and I are on the edges of our seats in this regard!
My favourite, from The Guardian newspaper:
“Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure”
Ban Ki-moon (UN Secretary General)
“It may not be everything we hoped for, but this decision of the Conference of Parties is an essential beginning.”
John Sauven (Executive Director, Greenpeace UK):
“It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”
Dr Peter Barrett (NZ Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington):
We now have to ask what more we can do to convince political and business leaders that the future threat from fossil energy is real, imminent and that our legacy does matter.”
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (Global Change Institute, University of Queensland)
A brave face on total failure. This is a triumph for the fossil fuel lobby.”
Professor Tim Flannery (Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council)
“We’ve made a huge advance at this meeting on a number of fronts, one being those pledged emissions, another being the funding we’ve now got for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The third is the REDD negotiations, the world’s efforts to protect the tropical rainforests and that seems to be going very well indeed.”
Dr Jim Salinger (University of Auckland)
“I welcome the news that the big players: USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have committed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C. It is essential that all countries sign on to effective emissions reductions targets of greenhouse gases by 40% at 2020 and 80% by 2080 to prevent disruptive climate change and sea level rise later this century that so threaten peoples such as those in the tropical Pacific.”
Professor Suzi Kerr (Stanford University, Department of Economics)
“The agreement on a transparent monitoring mechanism is a relief and a major step forward with respect to some key developing countries.”
Dr Andy Reisinger (Senior Research Fellow, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute)
“It is worrying that even those countries that brokered the deal have admitted that the specific emissions targets will not be stringent enough to reach their stated long-term goal, which is to limit global average temperature increases to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. We will have to wait until the final numbers are on table to see how far the actual emissions targets fall short of that ultimate goal, and what amount of warming we might expect more realistically once the dust and celebratory rhetoric has settled.”
The Monbiot vs Plimer debate is getting a little beyond common sense (see here for our previous coverage). Below is an excerpt from Lateline featuring both ‘contestants’ – Plimer simply can’t answer a very, very simple question put to him. If anyone want’s to jump to Plimer’s aid and support his case, please comment below. It’s beginning to look a little one-sided…