Author: Neville

  • Book Review: Global warming and oceans, a 21st century perspective

    Book Review: Global warming and oceans, a 21st century perspective

    Ocean Circulation and Climate belongs on every climate geek’s holiday wish list
    El Nino gathering over the Pacific Ocean

    A new book summarizing much of what we know about oceans and the role they play in shaping our Earth’s climate was just published. For researchers like myself, we often become fixated with learning the newest facts or reading the latest studies in our fields. Every so often, however, it is necessary to take a step back and provide a retrospective look at how our knowledge has developed with time. Such a retrospective was just provided by some of the world’s most qualified oceanographers. It is an update to a legendary text that was first printed in 2001.

    The cover of Ocean Circulation and Climate The cover of Ocean Circulation and ClimateThis is the second edition of “Ocean Circulation and Climate – Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean” published in 2001 at the end of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE). During the 1990s WOCE built on the availability of a new generation of altimeter satellites and carried out the first global scale study of the role of the oceans and their circulation in earth’s climate. WOCE’s primary objective was “to develop models useful for predicting climate change and to collect the data necessary to test them”.

    Since WOCE there has been enormous further progress both on ocean observations and modeling. The Argo array of profiling floats (a technological development started during WOCE) now routinely monitors the temperature and salinity of the upper ocean. The series of altimeter satellites continues. These strands now allow a better understanding of the inherent variability of the ocean not available in 2001. In parallel, the relentless increase in computational power permits better representation of crucial ocean processes. The new book has been produced simultaneously with the preparation of the 2013 IPCC WG1 5th assessment report and provides useful and up-to-date background on ocean-related issues central to the IPCC’s assessment.

    The remarkable progress in this area of ocean science since the turn of the century means that many of our present-day modeling and observational capabilities could only have been dreamed about in the 1990s. Thus the book, subtitled “A 21st Century Perspective”, is both timely and important. It contains 31 chapters that span the present state of knowledge. The 78 authors provide a truly international perspective as recognized experts in their respective fields. Eight were also authors of the IPCC WG1 AR5, which was released this fall, including Thomas Stocker (Chairman of WG1) who wrote the first chapter, “The Oceans as a Component of the Climate System”.

     Editors of Ocean Circulation and Climate The editors of Ocean Circulation and ClimateThree of the editors, Gerold Siedler (Germany), John Gould (UK) and John Church (Australia), were editors of the first edition and were joined by Stephen Griffies (USA) to provide additional expertise on modeling. All are internationally recognized experts in their respective fields.

    The introduction provides a great justification for the text,

    “Were it not for the ocean’s ability to absorb substantial amounts of heat and carbon, the effects of worldwide anthropogenic climate change would be much larger. The ocean is therefore already an important mitigating element in the Earth System”

    As a part-time ocean scientist myself, and a self-described ocean nerd, this may be the first item on my Christmas list.

  • Climate Change To Shrink Animal And Plant Habitats Dramatically, Study Forecasts

     

    Climate Change To Shrink Animal And Plant Habitats Dramatically, Study Forecasts

    Reuters  |  Posted: 05/12/2013 1:00 pm EDT  |  Updated: 05/13/2013 11:28 am EDT

    1,105
    381
    76
    6993
    Get Green Newsletters:

    * More than half of all plants, a third of animals at risk-study

    * Rapid peak in greenhouse gas emissions could reduce impacts

    By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

    OSLO, May 12 (Reuters) – The habitats of many common plants and animals will shrink dramatically this century unless governments act quickly to cut rising greenhouse gas emissions, scientists said on Sunday after studying 50,000 species around the world.

    The scientists from Britain, Australia and Colombia said plants, amphibians and reptiles were most vulnerable as global temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change.

    About 57 percent of plants and 34 percent of animal species were likely to lose more than half the area with a climate suited to them by the 2080s if nothing was done to limit emissions from power plants, factories and vehicles, they wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change.

    Hardest hit would be species in sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the Amazon and Central America.

    “Climate change will greatly reduce biodiversity, even for many common animals and plants,” lead author Rachel Warren of the University of East Anglia in England said. The decline would damage natural services for humans such as water purification and pollination, she said.

    But the scientists said governments could reduce the projected habitat loss by 60 percent if global greenhouse gas emissions peaked by 2016 and then fell. A peak by 2030 would cut losses by 40 percent.

    Only 4 percent of animals, and no plants, were likely to benefit from rising temperatures and gain at least 50 percent extra territory, the study said.

    However, some experts said while it was clear that global temperatures were rising, forecasting the effect on plants and animals was often unreliable as species range was difficult to check.

    DIFFICULT BALANCE

    Some past studies have indicated that creatures such as bats, hares or opossums may be more able to adapt to new climates than believed. Yet many species of frogs and toads are suffering worse declines in numbers than projected by computer models, apparently because a fungal skin disease is aggravating the effects of global warming.

    “It’s very difficult to get the right balance between crying wolf and examining the facts,” said Carsten Dormann, professor at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany, who was not involved in the study. “We simply don’t know if these assessments are correct.”

    The scientists said: “Over half of common plants and one third of the animals could see a dramatic decline this century due to climate change.” They said their findings were “probably conservative” as they did not take account of factors that could exacerbate declines, such as pests or diseases.

    Almost 200 governments have agreed to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times. They plan to agree, by the end of 2015, a deal to curb emissions.

    Global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.8 degree C (1.4F) since the Industrial Revolution.

    The amount of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began in 1958, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Friday.

    A U.N. panel of climate scientists says it is at least 90 percent likely that human activities, rather than natural variations, are the main cause of warming since about 1950.

    For the report: (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1887) (Reporting By Alister Doyle; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

    Also on HuffPost:

    Connect The Dots On Climate Change
  • Change.org has just reached 50 million users worldwide — with 1.5 million of you taking action here in Australia.

    Karen Skinner, Change.org <mail@change.org>
    5:28 PM (38 minutes ago)

    to me
    NEVILLE —

     

    We’ve got a little bit of exciting end-of-week news: Change.org has just reached 50 million users worldwide — with 1.5 million of you taking action here in Australia.

    Think the size of Facebook in 2007 or Twitter in 2009. But this platform isn’t just about clicks or shares: it helps you create the change what you want to see.

    Every month, millions of people around the world just like you are helping hundreds of petitions win through Change.org. You start your own campaigns, you sign and share them with friends, they spread like wildfire, the media tell your stories — and decision-makers respond.

    So what can 50 million people change? It turns out, a lot.

    For a stroll through some of most inspiring victories and stories of our users – from our oldest petition starter to the remotest winning petition (hint: it’s icy over there) – click here to check out this beautiful celebration of our community hitting 50 million users.

    And we couldn’t leave you without mentioning some of the most recent wins from all of you here in Australia. Over the last few weeks 77,000 of you helped get a mother of five life-saving surgery, a community took on Hungry Jacks for suing their local burger shop (and won!) — and a health food company was forced to pull ‘damaging’ ads exploiting low self esteem issues.

    As always — thanks for being a part of this incredible community.

    Be in touch soon.

    Karen, Nathan, Tony and the Change.org team.

    START A PETITION
    The person (or organisation) who started this petition is not affiliated with Change.org. Change.org did not create this petition and is not responsible for the petition content.

    This email was sent by Change.org to nevilleg729@gmail.com. You can edit your email preferences or unsubscribe from Change.org emails.

    Start a petition on Change.org

    Mailing Address: Change.org · 216 W 104th St., #130 · New York, NY 10025 USA

  • Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

    Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

    Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age, figures show

    Interactive – which fossil fuel companies are most responsible?

     Sandbag’s report into the emergence of emissions trading in China : carbon pollution

    Oil, coal and gas companies are contributing to most carbon emissions, causing climate change and some are also funding denial campaigns. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters

    The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests.

    The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms.

    The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a “crucial step forward” found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Climatic Change.

    “There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world,” climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. “But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two.”

    Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.

    Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change.

    Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.

    The United Nations climate change panel, the IPCC, warned in September that at current rates the world stood within 30 years of exhausting its “carbon budget” – the amount of carbon dioxide it could emit without going into the danger zone above 2C warming. The former US vice-president and environmental champion, Al Gore, said the new carbon accounting could re-set the debate about allocating blame for the climate crisis.

    Leaders meeting in Warsaw for the UN climate talks this week clashed repeatedly over which countries bore the burden for solving the climate crisis – historic emitters such as America or Europe or the rising economies of India and China.

    Gore in his comments said the analysis underlined that it should not fall to governments alone to act on climate change.

    “This study is a crucial step forward in our understanding of the evolution of the climate crisis. The public and private sectors alike must do what is necessary to stop global warming,” Gore told the Guardian. “Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution.”

    Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne CO2 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas and coal. The remaining seven were cement manufacturers.

    The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms – mainly oil companies with widely recognised names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP , and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers such as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton.

    Some 31 of the companies that made the list were state-owned companies such as Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom and Norway’s Statoil.

    Nine were government run industries, producing mainly coal in countries such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Poland, the host of this week’s talks.

    Experts familiar with Heede’s research and the politics of climate change said they hoped the analysis could help break the deadlock in international climate talks.

    “It seemed like maybe this could break the logjam,” said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard. “There are all kinds of countries that have produced a tremendous amount of historical emissions that we do not normally talk about. We do not normally talk about Mexico or Poland or Venezuela. So then it’s not just rich v poor, it is also producers v consumers, and resource rich v resource poor.”

    Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said he hoped the list would bring greater scrutiny to oil and coal companies’ deployment of their remaining reserves. “What I think could be a game changer here is the potential for clearly fingerprinting the sources of those future emissions,” he said. “It increases the accountability for fossil fuel burning. You can’t burn fossil fuels without the rest of the world knowing about it.”

    Others were less optimistic that a more comprehensive accounting of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions would make it easier to achieve the emissions reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    John Ashton, who served as UK’s chief climate change negotiator for six years, suggested that the findings reaffirmed the central role of fossil fuel producing entities in the economy.

    “The challenge we face is to move in the space of not much more than a generation from a carbon-intensive energy system to a carbonneutral energy system. If we don’t do that we stand no chance of keeping climate change within the 2C threshold,” Ashton said.

    “By highlighting the way in which a relatively small number of large companies are at the heart of the current carbon-intensive growth model, this report highlights that fundamental challenge.”

    Meanwhile, Oreskes, who has written extensively about corporate-funded climate denial, noted that several of the top companies on the list had funded the climate denial movement.

    “For me one of the most interesting things to think about was the overlap of large scale producers and the funding of disinformation campaigns, and how that has delayed action,” she said.

    The data represents eight years of exhaustive research into carbon emissions over time, as well as the ownership history of the major emitters.

    The companies’ operations spanned the globe, with company headquarters in 43 different countries. “These entities extract resources from every oil, natural gas and coal province in the world, and process the fuels into marketable products that are sold to consumers on every nation on Earth,” Heede writes in the paper.

    The largest of the investor-owned companies were responsible for an outsized share of emissions. Nearly 30% of emissions were produced just by the top 20 companies, the research found.

    By Heede’s calculation, government-run oil and coal companies in the former Soviet Union produced more greenhouse gas emissions than any other entity – just under 8.9% of the total produced over time. China came a close second with its government-run entities accounting for 8.6% of total global emissions.

    ChevronTexaco was the leading emitter among investor-owned companies, causing 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions to date, with Exxon not far behind at 3.2%. In third place, BP caused 2.5% of global emissions to date.

    The historic emissions record was constructed using public records and data from the US department of energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, and took account of emissions all along the supply chain.

    The centre put global industrial emissions since 1751 at 1,450 gigatonnes.

    Green light
  • Iran nuclear talks: Tehran ‘will not step back one iota’

    20 November 2013 Last update

    Iran nuclear talks: Tehran ‘will not step back one iota’

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addresses Basij militiamen in Tehran (20 November 2013) Ayatollah Khamenei warned the P5+1 not to “ratchet up the pressure on Iran”

    Iran’s Supreme Leader has warned his country will not step back “one iota” from its nuclear rights, as it resumes talks with world powers in Geneva.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he would not intervene directly in the negotiations, but that he had set “red lines” for Iran’s representatives.

    President Barack Obama meanwhile urged US senators not to impose new sanctions on Iran to allow time for diplomacy.

    He was unsure if it would be possible to reach an interim agreement soon.

    “We don’t know if we’ll be able to close a deal with Iran this week or next week,” he told a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) forum in Washington on Tuesday.

    Iran stresses that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, but world powers suspect it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

    ‘Way forward’In a televised speech on Wednesday, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran’s negotiators had been set clear limits before they travelled to Switzerland for two days of meetings with representatives of the P5+1 – the US, UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany.

    They failed to agree a deal at a previous round of talks earlier this month mainly because of what diplomats said was Iran’s insistence on formal recognition of its “right” to enrich uranium and France’s concerns about the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak.

    Javid Zarif’s YouTube message: “Nuclear energy is not about joining club or threatening others”

    “We do insist that we will not step back one iota from our rights,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

    But he added: “We do not intervene in the details of these talks. There are certain red lines and limits. These have to be observed. They are instructed to abide by those limits.”

    The Supreme Leader, who has final say in Iran’s nuclear matters, warned the P5+1 not to “ratchet up the pressure”.

    “They should know that the Iranian nation respects all nations of the world, but we will slap aggressors in the face in such a way they will never forget it.”

    Continue reading the main story

    Negotiating positions for interim deal

    P5+1 wants Iran to:

    • Halt uranium enrichment to medium level of purity, or 20%
    • Reduce concentration of existing stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium or convert it to oxide form
    • Not allow Arak heavy-water reactor to go into operation
    • Commit to permitting more inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

    Iran wants the P5+1 to:

    • Recognise its “right” to enrich uranium
    • End international and unilateral sanctions

    The talks in Geneva will be led in the first instance by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Baroness Catherine Ashton, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

    In a video message posted on YouTube on Tuesday, Mr Zarif urged the P5+1 to deal with Iran on an “equal footing” and stressed that for his country nuclear energy was “about securing the future of our children, about diversifying our economy, about stopping the burning of our oil, and about generating clean power”.

    “There is a way forward, a constructive path towards determining our destiny,” he said.

    Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister David Cameron spoke to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani by telephone. It was the first such conversation between British and Iranian leaders for more than a decade.

    ‘Open the spigot’Mr Obama told the WSJ forum that any interim agreement – expected to last six months – would see the bulk of international and US sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme remain in place.

    “We are not doing anything around the most powerful sanctions. The oil sanctions, the banking sanctions, the financial services sanctions, those are the ones that have really taken a big chunk out of the Iranian economy,” he added.

    Heavy-water plant in Arak, Iran - which some Western powers insist must be shut down (file image from 2006) One contentious issue at the talks has been Iran’s heavy-water reactor at Arak

    Mr Obama explained that the “essence of the deal” would be that Iran would halt advances of its nuclear programme – including rolling back elements that might “get them closer to what we call breakout capacity, where they can run for a weapon before the international community has a chance to react”, and agreeing to “more vigorous inspections”.

    “In return, what we would do would be to open up the spigot a little bit for a very modest amount of relief that is entirely subject to reinstatement if, in fact, they violated any part of this early agreement. And it would purchase a period of time,” he said.

    On Sunday, French President Francois Hollande said Iran would have to agree to halting its enrichment of uranium to a medium level of purity, or 20%; reducing its existing stockpile of enriched uranium, and stopping the construction of the Arak heavy-water reactor.

    Experts say Iran’s 20%-enriched uranium could be enriched to weapons-grade, or 90%, in a relatively short time, while spent fuel from the Arak reactor will contain plutonium suitable for use in nuclear weapons.

    More on This Story

    Comments

    Sign in with your BBC iD, or Register to comment and rate comments

    All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.

    Jump to comments pagination

    • Rate this comment positivelyRate this comment negatively

      +1

      Comment number 5.

      musictechguy
      Just now

      There will be lots of dancing around, maybe for another year or 2, and then the US will invade.

       

    • Rate this comment positivelyRate this comment negatively

      0

      Comment number 4.

      KirstyKaye
      3 Minutes ago

      Yes, we know that you are hell bent on destruction and would love a nuclear arsenal to facilitate this. Thank you for confirming this Mister Ayatollah. A lot of very silly delusional types are going to know exactly what Iran’s intentions are sooner or later. Then they are going to have to grow up, stop shouting at their parents and face the big bad wolf outside the door.

       

    • Rate this comment positivelyRate this comment negatively

      0

      Comment number 3.

      Dave Jones
      3 Minutes ago

      @2 hagishead

      Whilst I agree in principle that you cant punish for what might happen in the future, what might happen will be irreversable and could forsee pretty much the downfall of the world we know.

      Better to be safe then sorry in this instance.

      Again though, a heavy wiff of Religion stinking out common sense again. Religion – Together we will find a cure.

       

    • Rate this comment positivelyRate this comment negatively

      +4

      Comment number 2.

      hagishead
      9 Minutes ago

      Firstly I find it ironic that the nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States. Is it not completely unfair and undemocratic to punish, vilify and impose policital and economic sanctions on a country based on what they might do in the future? guilty until proven innocent?

       

    • Rate this comment positivelyRate this comment negatively

      -3

      Comment number 1.

      hashtag1
      9 Minutes ago

      Iran warns now but once they’ve got the bomb it’ll be threats!

       

    Sign in with your BBC iD, or Register to comment and rate comments

    All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.

    More Middle East stories

    RSS

    Top

  • Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

    Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on

    Bloc of 132 countries exit Warsaw conference after rich nations refuse to discuss climate change recompense until after 2015
    MDG : UN climate change conference in Warsaw, Poland

    UN climate change conference in Warsaw: developing countries have demanded that a new UN institution be set up to oversee compensation. Photograph: Zhang Fan/Rex

    Representatives of most of the world’s poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

    The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about “loss and damage” – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan.

    Saleemul Huq, the scientist whose work on loss and damage helped put the issue of recompense on the conference agenda, said: “Discussions were g oing well in a spirit of co-operation, but at the end of the session on loss and damage Australia put everything agreed into brackets, so the whole debate went to waste.”

    Australia was accused of not taking the negotiations seriously. “They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in,” said a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network.

    Developing countries have demanded that a new UN institution be set up to oversee compensation but rich countries have been dismissive, blocking calls for a full debate in the climate talks.

    “The EU understands that the issue is incredibly important for developing countries. But they should be careful about … creating a new institution. This is not [what] this process needs,” said Connie Hedegaard, EU climate commissioner.

    She ruled out their most important demand, insisting: “We cannot have a system where we have automatic compensation when severe events happen around the world. That is not feasible.”

    The G77 and China group, which is due to give a press conference on Wednesday to explain the walkout, has made progress on loss and damage, which it says is a “red line” issue. It claims to be unified with similar blocs including the Least Developed Countries, Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group of negotiators.

    Hedegaard poured cold water on last week’s related proposal by Brazil, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be asked to find a way to quantify each country’s historical emissions of greenhouse gases in order to help countries establish the level of future emission cuts.

    Debate on the issue has been rejected by rich countries, which fear it could lead to unacceptable costs.

    Hedegaard conceded that rich countries had a special responsibility to cut emissions. “The whole financing discussion reflects that the developed world knows it has special responsibility. Most of what has been emitted has been done by us,” she said.

    Harjeet Singh, ActionAid Internatonal’s spokesman on disaster risk, said: “The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that’s hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder. They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically.”

    Poverty matters

    close

    Sign up for the Poverty matters email

    The most important debate and discussion from around the world delivered every fortnight.

    Sign up for the Poverty matters email

    Today’s best video