Category Archives: Science & Politics

HFC emissions and impact on climate projected to grow much faster than expected

Posted on by
Reply

ocp06-fig2

A new article in PNAS (Velders et al 2009) argues that HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) emissions will grow at a surprising rate, becoming a substantial greenhouse gas later this century.  HFCs were developed  as a replacement for ozone damaging CFCs.  Production and release of HFCs have grown quickly since the 1995 ban on CFCs.

From the abstract – The consumption and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are projected to increase substantially in the coming decades in response to regulation of ozone depleting gases under the Montreal Protocol. The projected increases result primarily from sustained growth in demand for refrigeration, air-conditioning (AC) and insulating foam products in developing countries assuming no new regulation of HFC consumption or emissions…Global HFC emissions significantly exceed previous estimates after 2025 with developing country emissions as much as 800% greater than in developed countries in 2050. Global HFC emissions in 2050 are equivalent to 9–19% (CO2-eq. basis) of projected global CO2 emissions in business-as-usual scenarios and contribute a radiative forcing equivalent to that from 6–13 years of CO2 emissions near 2050. This percentage increases to 28–45% compared with projected CO2 emissions in a 450-ppm CO2stabilization scenario.

CFC

Read and download the article in PNAS here

Read a related post on Andrew Revkins Dot Earth blog here

US Congress to consider major climate change bill

Posted on by
Reply

BlueMarbleAgain

From Politico: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will roll the dice on a top priority this week, bringing a contentious climate change bill to the floor despite strong misgivings from her rank-and-file and an outspoken chairman who remains a major impediment. Read the full story here

From the NYT: House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill  clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it…Perhaps the biggest modification in the new version involves language sought by the nation’s rural electric cooperatives that gives the country’s smallest power utilities a free 0.5 percent slice of the cap-and-trade program’s valuable emission allowances…Democrats are still not done wheeling and dealing as they gear up for a floor debate, with critical issues still unresolved on everything from biofuels to which federal agency — U.S. EPA or the Agriculture Department — will have lead oversight of the offset program that would pay for environmentally friendly land management practices.  Read the full NYT article here.

One thing I like about the draft bill is it’s realist view of the value of biofuels. Accurately accounting for the true carbon footprint of biofuels has become a major sticking point for the bill, with farm state representatives arguing for restricting the EPAs authority:

From the NYT – the bill as posted does not restrict EPA’s authority to weigh “indirect” emissions from land-use changes when calculating the carbon footprint of biofuels. The issue is important because under a 2007 expansion of the renewable fuels standard, biofuels must have, to varying degrees, lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels.

NGOs are cautiously supportive of the bill.  Lou Leonard, Director of U.S. Climate Policy for World Wildlife Fund, said “Passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act through the Energy and Commerce Committee today marks a watershed moment in the decades-long battle to protect our planet from dangerous climate change and all of the economic, environmental and national security vulnerabilities it presents.” but noted ” I remain concerned that the legislation falls far short of what is needed for international clean technology cooperation and international adaptation assistance. Unless strengthened, this bill could undermine the President’s ability to secure an effective international agreement during climate negotiations in Copenhagen this fall.  See the full WWF statement on the bill here

Download the bill as a PDF here

UPDATE: Democrats have reached an agreement with farm state republicans, setting the stage for a vote on the bill, expected Friday. Read the full story here

Climate Change Accounting Goes Public in a Big Way

Posted on by
1

2_image002Solve Climate reports on a massive electronic billboard displaying the real-time stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, unveiled on 18 June outside New York City’s Penn Station.

The world’s first “Carbon Counter”, launched by Deutsche Bank, will be seen daily by half a million people and millions more can do so online at know-the-number.com.

The basis for the number displayed on the Carbon Counter – over 3.6 trillion tons and rising by 800 tons per second – is not immediately clear. Deutsche Bank explains the calculation of the figure on its website:

Greenhouse gas concentrations are frequently expressed as an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This CO2-equivalent concentration in parts per million (ppm) can then be expressed in terms of metric ton of CO2, a standard of measurement, which as a stock of gases in the atmosphere is readily understood.

According to the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379 ppm in 2005. The estimate of total CO2-eq concentration in 2005 for all long-lived GHGs is about 455ppm.

On June 18th as the counter started, long-lived GHGs in the atmosphere were estimated to be 3.64 trillion metric tons, growing at 2 billion metric tons per month, or 467 ppm, of which CO2 was 385 ppm.

The Carbon Counter, therefore, displays in metric tons the absolute amount of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (as opposed to the concentration) but excludes the cooling effect of aerosols.

The use of the absolute amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere yields a big number that is rapidly increasing, but it is questionable whether this muddies the already confusing array of units used to explain the rising pressure of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is a simpler and much more widely used unit used to explain the rising pressure of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, though less dramatic for a real-time billboard aiming to capture the attention of passing commuters.

CO2 Now suggests that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 390.18 ppm in May 2009, up nearly 2ppm from 388.50 ppm in May 2008, the highest level in at least the past 800,000 years.

Related posts:

·         Avoiding confusion for stabilisation targets for climate change and ocean acidification.

A place at the negotiating table?

Posted on by
Reply

fisheries

Fisheries must be included in the ongoing discussions of how the world’s most vulnerable can adapt to climate change. The future consequences for global fisheries are uncertain, but what is certain is that there will be winners and losers, and we can bet the losers will be those who don’t have much already, says a recent policy article published in Nature by Nicholas Dulvy and Edward Allison.

Warmer and more acidic waters could result in decreased fish stocks, altered fish migration routes and loss of important fish spawning grounds. Dulvy and Allison highlight that it is the poorest coastal nations of the world that are most susceptible to climate change effects on aquatic ecosystems. People of these vulnerable countries are highly dependent on fisheries for income and food security, while having limited societal capacity to adapt to the ongoing changes:

African and southeast Asian countries are the most economically vulnerable to climate change impacts on their fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Of the 33 nations identified as being most vulnerable to climate impacts on their fisheries sectors, 19 are among the world’s least developed countries, whose inhabitants are twice as reliant on fish and fisheries for food as those of more developed nations.

The authors plea that aquatic resources, and the people dependent on them, are included in upcoming global climate treaties. More specifically, they offer some policy recommendations. For example, combined targets of emission reductions and sustainable fisheries management could be reached by reducing the overinflated global fishing fleet. Countries doing so could gain carbon credits as this action represents a legitimate mitigation activity. Furthermore, a more flexible and diversified fishing sector, which can adapt to changes in catch composition and stock abundances, should be promoted. Finally, fisheries policies should be integrated into a wider development process. For example, artisinal fishers can be provided with alternative livelihoods that lessen their dependence on fisheries, while the social-ecological resilience of vulnerable fishing communities can be promoted by improving their infrastructure, access to markets and social services.

Paul Gilding: “Don’t sweat the small stuff, Copenhagen is just a training exercise”

Posted on by
1

copenhagen

Paul Gilding, a climate change activist and independent writer has published an astonishing piece on his blog (‘The Cockatoo Chronicles‘) on why we shouldn’t worry too much about the outcome at Copenhagen Conference in December this year:

Now the world is slowly waking up to the climate threat, passionate debates are raging around the world on climate policy – cap and trade systems vs taxes, renewables vs coal with CCS and global agreements vs national action. From the US, to China, from South Africa to Australia, policy makers are examining their options and vested interests are furiously protecting their turf.

As recently as a year ago I would have been deeply engaged by these debates, deeply concerned that we got the right reduction target, the right policy mechanism, the right strategy in place. Now I find myself watching with an almost surreal detachment, observing with interest but rarely getting excited or disappointed as the debate swings this way or that.

Why?

This is all just shadow boxing, the training session before the game really begins. What happens this year and next, even at the Copenhagen conference is of marginal significance only. What? That’s heresy! Isn’t the Copenhagen Climate conference the most critical global meeting in history, the one that will determine the future of civilisation? No, not really. Here’s why.

(Read More)

How common is dishonesty and misconduct in science?

Posted on by
Reply

In the media recently was a revealling story on ‘dubious’ practices in research, describing how the well-known science publisher Elsevier had published a series of  ‘fake’ journals that were dedicated entirely to publishing results from drug company research (such as the ‘Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine‘, dedicated to Merck). On similair lines, a classic paper came out a few years ago showing  that ~1% of papers submitted to  The Journal of Cell Biology had digital images that had been ‘improperly manipulated’ prior to publication. Combine with this with the now infamous case of the ‘fake’ human stem cell lines from the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk. and it does little to re-assure the public that scientists are keeping science ‘honest’.

To find out how common these habits really are, a recent publication in the journal PLoS ONE attempted to exam the proportion of scientists who  fabricate and falsify research. The results, based upon a meta-analysis of anonymous surveys from scientists from many disciplines, are surprising to say the least. An average of 1.97% of scientists admit to have fabricated, falsified or modified their results on at least one occasion, and upto 33.7% admitted to other ‘questionable’ research practices.

Intriguingly, when scientists were asked about their colleagues, the numbers increased dramatically – upto 14.2% for falsification, and upto 72% for other ‘questionable’ research practices. What seems slightly more alarming is that misconduct was apparently reported more frequently by medical & pharmacological researchers than other fields!Reassured yet? The article concludes with the following

‘Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct,’

‘It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.'”

Click here to read the article in full at PloS ONE.

The final word on the Plimer debacle

Posted on by
1

My friend Mary Stafford-Smith sent me this article from The Australian newspaper last week. Dr Michael Ashley (Professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW) seems to have the final word in this debate!

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

Spring Cleaning

Posted on by
Reply

Climate shifts web guru and contributor Jez Roff has an eye for peculiar marine critters and phenomena including large worms, pink dolphins , giant crabs, and fashionable turtles.

He is the lead author of a new Reef Site article published in the journal Coral Reefs about corals that extrude mesenterial filament to tidy up new surfaces before then grow onto them.

Peripheral polyp mesenterial filaments at the lesion margins were observed to actively “sweep” and remove detritus within the perimeter surrounding the recovering lesions (Fig. 1b). Our observations of pre-emptive cleaning appeared to be linked with extracoelenteric digestion of detritus by the mesenterial filaments (Fig. 1c), exposing the glass slide to a width of several polyps. The continuous removal of detrital and algal material facilitated tissue expansion by the prevention of competitor settlement and by the preparation of substrates for calcified coral growth (Fig. 1d).

sweepers

Fig. 1 a Accumulation of detrital matter on glass slides following lesion induction of Acropora pulchra branches. b Pre-emptive cleaning of substrates (perimeter marked by black arrows) surrounding growing margins ofAcropora pulchra by mesenterial filaments (white arrows). c Close-up of protruding mesenterial filaments actively feeding and removing detritus. d Tissue growth and calcification onto cleaned surface 90 days following lesion formation (scale = 3 mm)

Geoengineering, climate change and ‘albedo flips’

Posted on by
2

As it has become increasingly clear that we are well into a period of dangerous or even catastrophic climate change, discussions about geoengineering have become more intense and public.  Now the US government is openly admitting that it too is discussing the pros and cons of geo-engineering.  This article includes some fascinating insights into these discussions.   Newly appointed White House science advisor, John Holdren, told the Associated Press, for example, that “as the global climate picture gets gloomier, geoengineering is sneaking into White House conversations”.

“It’s got to be looked at,” Holdren said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”

asd

Percentage of diffusely reflected sun light in relation to various surface conditions of the Earth (source: Wikipedia)

Sounds to me like geoengineering is very much on the agenda! There are various aspects which contribute to the diffuse reflectivity of the planet – such as clouds, ice and snow and even vegetation.  The graph on the left shows the various contributions of different aspects of the planet to its albedo.  These various characteristics have a powerful role in determining the earth temperature.  The recent loss of summer Arctic ice is a case in point.  Calculations show that the resulting “albedo flip” from reflective ice to darker ice-free ocean will dramatically increase the energy being absorbed by the earth and drive its temperature upward by over a degree Celsius.

Various ideas have been floated about on how to increase the reflectivity of the earth – including pumping reflective particles into the outer atmosphere of the earth in order to bounce more energy back into space.  These calculations suggest that relatively small amounts of material could lower the earth’s temperature by as much as 1-2°C.  The contribution to lowering temperature such as this would certainly take some of the pressure off and buy us important time as we urgently struggle to get greenhouse emissions under control.

But there is reason for great caution. Apart from the fact that there are many uncertainties and unknowns (i.e. are we certain that we know how much of these yet-to-be-invented particles to add to the atmosphere?), there is the concern that offering this option will take the pressure off governments to act decisively on the problem of fossil fuels and their emissions.  It also has a range of legal and ethical issues.  For example, should any particular government be able to unilaterally decide whether or not to manipulate the earth’s albedo and temperature without the agreement from all?  And if manipulating temperature downward were to result in deaths from cooling temperatures or disturbances in the weather, what then?

And it is important to remember that changing the albedo of the earth will not solve all the problems associated with upwardly spiralling atmospheric carbon dioxide.  For example, decreasing the temperature of the planet will do nothing to solve the problem of ocean acidification.

Microdocs and podcasts

Posted on by
Reply

ANU environmental podcast
Australian National University are podcasting a series of lectures and seminars on the environment, and are covering some hard hitting topics, ranging from policy and economy to oceanography (several of which I might not entirely agree with) . Below are three of the best – see the full listing here.

The microdoc project: ‘short attention span science videos’
Steve Palumbi and colleagues at Stanford University have produced an exceptional collection of microdocs (2-3 minute documentaries on a single topic), focused around a central theme of “Sustainability on Coral Reefs”. To paraphrase Rick McPherson, microdocs ‘take on macro ocean issues’, and are a great way to get key messages on ecological sustainability and coral reefs across to the media, general public and schools. The Stanford microdocs website has a full listing of all microdocs, and below are some of the highlights:

picture-273 picture-272
picture-271 picture-274_