Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report

By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

The BBC’s Victoria Gill explains why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report really matters, in just 90 seconds

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming.

Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures.

But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998.

One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a “central piece” of the summary.

Researchers from all over the world work with the IPCC to pore over thousands of peer-reviewed studies and produce a summary representing the current state of climate science.

Its previous report in 2007 was instrumental in helping the panel share the Nobel Peace Prize that year.

A new Summary for Policymakers on the physical sciences, the first of three parts that make up a report to be released over the next 12 months, will be published in Stockholm on Friday.

It will focus on the science underlying changes in temperature in the atmosphere, the oceans and at the poles.

New estimates will be given for the scale of global warming and its impact on sea levels, glaciers and ice sheets.

Levels of certainty

In its last report in 2007, the IPCC stated that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” – in other words, humans burning fossil fuels.

In the latest draft summary, seen by the BBC, the level of scientific certainty has increased.

The panel states that it is 95% certain that the “human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010.”

But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven’t gone above the level recorded in 1998.

This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong.

Scientists have attempted to explain the pause in a number of ways, with many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans.

The most recent report suggested that a periodic cooling of the Pacific ocean was counteracting the impact of the extra carbon in the atmosphere.

But there is no certainty and little agreement among scientists on the mechanisms involved.

And this week, when the scientists will go through their summary line by line with officials from 195 governments, the pause is likely to be the focus of heated debate.

Chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri celebrates the panel’s share of the Nobel peace prize in 2007

Prof Arthur Petersen is the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and part of the Dutch delegation that will review the IPCC report.

“Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor,” he told BBC News.

“I expect that this will be a central piece of the summary.”

There are likely to be tough negotiations between the parties throughout the week, with governments having already submitted around 1,800 comments on the draft.

Any changes to the text will need to be approved by the scientists, who will want to make sure that they are consistent with the underlying reports. This could lead to some tense moments.

“I wouldn’t say there is a reluctance of the authors to take up such an issue as the pause, but they want to do it in a proper way,” said Prof Petersen.

“There will remain a tension between how much you can deliver based on the peer-reviewed science and what the governments would like to have.”

Too sensitive

In the draft report, the panel agrees that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951”.

The effect of this slowdown means that the future temperature range predicted by the IPCC will be wider than in 2007, and with a lower starting point.

Many sceptical voices believe this is a recognition that the IPCC modelling process has been too sensitive to carbon dioxide, a claim given some credence by the text of the draft which states that some models have “too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing”.

But Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who is a vice-chair of the IPCC, rejects this idea.

Continue reading the main story

“To take that out of context, if that change is confirmed this week, and to present it as a big change in the opinion the IPCC has on climate sensitivity, is ridiculous,” he said.

“Most climate scientists wouldn’t say that the 15-year period is a good reason to question the overall quality of models.”

There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007.

In the wake of that year’s report, a small number of embarrassing errors were detected in the underlying material. The organisation’s reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus.

“Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones,” said Prof Petersen.

“The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.

“It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!”

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Astronomers learn more about the physics of black holes.

Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/ocean-eddies-cosmic-black-holes-may-have-much-in-common/#ixzz2fyLu6KKF

Australia waits for a $64 billion wind and solar boom

Investment bank Citi says there is a $64 billion market opportunity for solar and wind energy installations in Australia, which it says rates as the most attractive market for solar in the world based on costs.

A report by Citi into the global investment opportunity for renewables says $5.6 trillion of wind and solar energy could be invested around the world without added costs for extra infrastructure or back-up – which it describes as its “sensible investment” scenario, or its near term opportunity.

Its estimate for Australia suggests that up to 12GW of solar (an investment of $26 billion) could be absorbed into the Australian grid without added costs, and up to 16GW of wind ($38 billion).

Australia currently has about 2.6GW of solar and just under 3GW of wind capacity. Citi’s estimate is based on a 20 per cent “sensible wind penetration” – which is a global average. It notes that some economies will comfortably absorb 30 per cent with little added cost.

This graph below highlights how Citi sees the “sensible” investment opportunity around the world. “Certain countries such as Japan, Australia, Latin America and the US are better positioned to participate in this investment wave while in other countries such as Italy and Germany the renewables boom should be largely over,” it says.

Solar in Australia rates highly because it can compete “behind the meter”, or with residential prices, and because of ability of utility scale solar to displace expensive gas peakers during the day-time. Wind is less attractive in Australia compared to other countries because it has to compete with relatively low-cost wholesale prices, and does not necessarily produce at peak time.

Citi notes that in Australia, households are facing the choice between (a) buying electricity from the socket at a rate of $30ct/kWh or (b) producing solar electricity at a cost of $18.5ct/kWh. “By installing solar panels a household would save $11.5ct for every kWh consumed from solar,” it says.

This graph below shows how Australia compares with other countries in terms of investment opportunities.

 

Tapping a valuable resource or invading the environment? Research examines the start of fracking in Ohio

Posted By News On September 25, 2013 – 2:30pm

A new study is examining methane and other components in groundwater wells, in advance of drilling for shale gas that’s expected over the next several years in an Ohio region. Amy Townsend-Small, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor of geology, will present on the study on Sept. 27, at the 10th Applied Isotope Geochemistry Conference in Budapest, Hungary.

The team of UC researchers spent a year doing periodic testing of groundwater wells in Carroll County, Ohio, a section of Ohio that sits along the shale-rich Pennsylvania-West Virginia borders. The study analyzed 25 groundwater wells at varying distances from proposed fracking sites in the rural, Appalachian, Utica Shale region of Carroll County. Because the region is so rural, the majority of the population relies on groundwater wells for their water supply.

“This is a major area for shale gas drilling in Ohio, and one reason is because shales in the area are thought to have a good amount of liquid fuel as well as natural gas,” says Townsend-Small.

The researchers are currently analyzing samples from groundwater wells over a one-year period, with water samples drawn every three-to-four months.

The samples are being analyzed for concentrations of methane as well as hydrocarbons – a carcinogenic compound – and salt, which is pulled up in the fracking water mixture from the shales, which are actually ancient ocean sediments.

“We’re examining changes over time resulting from fracking, and since this is just beginning in Ohio, we have the opportunity to make some baseline assessments,” says Townsend-Small.

At an international forum, preliminary research out of the University of Cincinnati examines groundwater resources near hydraulic fracturing operations in the Buckeye State.

(Photo Credit: Amy Townsend-Small)

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves using millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to break up organic-rich shale to release natural gas resources.

Proponents say fracking promises a future in lower energy prices, cleaner energy and additional jobs amid a frail economy. Opponents raise concerns about the practice leading to increased methane gas levels (known as the greenhouse gas) and other contamination – resulting from spillover of fracking wastewater – of groundwater in shale-rich regions.

Townsend-Small explains that some groundwater wells naturally hold a certain level of methane due to the decomposition of organic matter. It’s not toxic in drinking water, but high levels can result in explosion. The study includes measurements of stable isotopes, which can indicate whether methane is derived from natural organic matter decomposition or from fossil fuels.

Other chemicals in fracking wastewater are toxic and dangerous for drinking water. Future UC research includes measurements of some of these compounds, as fracking progresses in the region.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported this summer that natural gas reserve additions in 2011 ranked as the second-largest annual increase since 1977, with hydraulic fracturing adding to increased oil and gas reserves.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources reports that 882 sites in the state of Ohio have been awarded permits for fracking. In Carroll County, 327 sites have been awarded permits and 236 have been drilled.

 

Source: University of Cincinnati

Post new comment

Your name: *

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage:

Comment: *

• Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite><p><br><i><b><center><ul><li><div><html5:figure><html5:figcaption>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

Sorry, we know you’re not a spambot, but they’re out there

	Privacy & Terms

skip to main content

Search

Perrin Ireland’s Blog

40 Percent of Food in the US Never Gets Eaten

Posted September 20, 2013 in Health and the Environment, Living Sustainably, The Media and the Environment

Tags:

#DatingGame, #NRDCscience, #scicomm, #sciox, #sciscribe

Originally published at Scientific American Blogs. 

My second round of inquiry into The Dating Game report by NRDC, which explains how the food dating system drives food waste in America, was with two authors of the report itself- Emily Broad Lieb, who directs the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, an expert on the legal system that contributes to this situation, and Dana Gunders, NRDC’s resident scientist on food waste.

My chat with Emily Leib:

What is the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, and how did the Clinic become involved in this report?

The Clinic is an experiential learning program in which law students are able to engage in practical, hands-on training working with real world clients to impact food laws and policies.

Our work on expiration dates started as a project addressing the needs of our client, Doug Rauch, who was looking to start a new model of  food store that would sell food that was still good but might otherwise go to waste. After conducting some research for him on all of the state laws regarding food expiration date labeling, we realized that the system was in major need of an overhaul and we thought this was a great way to use the clinic’s energies. This is an area where the legal system, rather than improving a social issue, is actually at fault for creating more food waste and reduced consumer safety.

The first thing that stood out to me in looking at the report is that the food labeling system is described as “confused.” Why would you say that is?

The system most definitely is confused! It is such a mess that it is hard to even call it a “system.” Since there is an absence of regulation at the federal level, states have stepped into the void and are regulating food labeling in a range of different ways.

We had trouble finding any two states that had the same rules. As an example, New York does not require dates on any foods and does not regulate the sale of foods after dates that are voluntarily placed, but the six neighboring states all have requirements that certain foods are labeled and/or regulate sale of foods after those dates. The very fact that states are so inconsistent with one another shows that these dates have nothing to do with food safety, because food safety outcomes are not varying from state to state based on these date labeling laws.

Yet all of this confusion is hidden from consumers, so that it appears as a “system” to consumers and they treat date labels as if they are meaningful. Most people we talk to are shocked to find out that the terms used are undefined, that there are no rules about how dates are set, and that the labels are so inconsistently regulated.

When I see a “sell by” date on a package, what does that actually mean?

“Sell by” generally is a date that is intended for manufacturers to communicate to retailers so that retailers will know when something needs to be sold by so that it still has shelf life for the consumers, and otherwise should be rotated off the shelves. But because there is no set legal definition of this term, this is not always the case. In fact, some states treat “sell by” as if it is the same as “use by” and “best before”. But in general, I think consumers can look at sell by and know that this is intended as a stock rotation date and that foods are still safe and fresh for a few days after that date.

What about ‘use by’ or ‘best by’ dates? What is the difference between those two categories?

Again, since these dates are not defined, there is no set meaning for these terms. And in the US, there is no consistent difference between the two – they are often used interchangeably. In other countries, like in the EU, “use by” is linked with safety, and “best before” with quality, but this is not necessarily the case in the US.

The report focuses on how the labeling system ends up inadvertently creating food waste, but you also reference how under-regulation of the food labeling system also causes food safety issues. Can you explain that?

The main issue is that consumers not only rely on food dates as a reason for tossing food that is still perfectly edible and safe, but they also seem to believe that all foods will be safe prior to the expiration dates, so they will continue to eat food that has actually been stored or handled unsafely. So the overreliance on dates and the misunderstanding of dates as safety indicators causes problems on both ends.

How could federal regulations of food labeling be improved?

After conducting all of this state and industry research, as well as looking at the impacts on consumers, I’m convinced that improving and standardizing the inconsistent and ineffective system of date labels would help consumers maximize their food budgets, reduce food and resource waste, and improve food safety. In my mind, the most straightforward way to do this is using federal regulation. This is not to say that industry could not do a lot of good with voluntary changes, but because there is such a range of state laws regarding date labels and they are so different from one another, there are actually some limitations on what changes industry can make. So unless the really strict states change their rules or until the federal government steps in to create uniform rules, industry action can be a great first step but may not be able to get us to the best system. That said, because I assume it costs a lot for companies to keep up with all the state laws (many of which are still changing – four states passed new expiration date laws in 2012), I think there are also benefits to industry in terms of reduced administrative costs if they have a uniform law.

How has this work affected you personally?

Starting to do work in this area has completely changed my household’s consumption habits – we spend much more time looking into the best ways to store food so it lasts longer and we never throw food away on any “expiration” date unless it looks or smells bad or we know we have had it for longer than we should. We have only had good experiences doing this – we are saving food and saving money!

~~~

My chat with Dana Gunders, NRDC’s project scientist on food and agriculture:

What got you interested in this report to begin with?

The report stems from a larger report we worked on, the Wasted Report, where we looked at the drivers and extent of food waste across the country. We landed on expiration dates as one topic that’s driving food waste, and a system that’s not really serving consumers or industry at all.

I’m interested in this idea that it’s not serving consumers or industry. Can you tell me more about that?

Consumers are interpreting these dates to mean that food is unsafe to eat, or that there’s some safety implication behind the dates, whereas in fact the dates are really about quality. They’re thinking it’s an objective, rational system, whereas in fact there’s a great amount of subjectivity to the whole thing. Not too long ago, I went into a Trader Joe’s store and took a look at the milk section. All the milk is Trader Joe’s branded, and on the same type of milk, between the gallon and half gallon, there were two different types of dates. Fat free milk, with half gallon and quart, the same product had different information- one was a Best By date and one had no letters on it. Same exact product and totally different dating system.

There’s confusion in the industry as well- the lack of standardization is causing industry money. There’s a report put out by the industry in 2003 where they estimate there’s $900 million worth of product not being sold because of expiration date. Some portion of that they attribute to lack of standardization.

A former CEO of a grocery chain told me a story that they were buying the same meats as the competitor across the street, but their store was putting the date three days out, whereas the competitor was putting it as five days out. They thought they were making the product seem fresher that way, but when they started interviewing people they found they were going across the street to purchase meat, because they were assuming that with five days out it had more time left and was therefore fresher. They changed it and all was well. But that’s how arbitrary some of these dates can be.

What are the environmental implications for this kind of food waste?

Across the country, about 40% of food never gets eaten. When you think about the fact that in the US, 80% of our fresh water consumption, over half of our land area, and 10% of our energy budget goes to putting food on our tables. If we’re not eating that food, that’s a terrible use of those resources. In the UK, a study of British households showed that in homes, 20% of the waste that is really avoidable was coming from confusion over expiration dates. Our estimate is very back of the envelope, but if we apply that in the US, households could be spending between $275 and $455 dollars a year as a family unit on food that they’re throwing out prematurely.

What are NRDC’s recommendations to improve this situation?

The bottom  line is that we would like to see a less confusing and more standardized system of dates. 91% of people reported throwing food away out of concern for its safety on the sell by date, at least occasionally–and that’s the date manufacturers are using to guarantee to the store the product will have shelf life left after it’s purchased. (From an industry report called the US Grocery Shopper Trends 2011, by Food Marketing Institute- the major trade association for food retailers.) Our first recommendation is to hide that sell by information and replace it with a date that is more helpful for consumers, so they don’t throw their food away on that date thinking it’s bad.

Our second recommendation is to have a consumer-facing dating system that’s much more clear in what it’s trying to convey. There should be a clear distinction as to whether it’s a quality date or a safety date, and perhaps more transparency as to how that date was arrived at.

If it’s a safety message, then let’s use those words. Let’s say, “Unsafe to eat after.” If it’s about peak quality, then let’s use words that clearly convey that. Maybe we should use something like “Maximum freshness before” or “Peak quality before”.

If I want my food to be as good as it can be, should I still pay attention to the sell by date?

That date is the manufacturer’s suggestion for when it’s at its very peak quality. What does it mean to not be at its peak quality? It depends on which product. If you think about a box of Mac N Cheese that has a date of March 2015- what’s going to happen if you eat that in May 2015? You probably won’t be able to tell the difference.

~~~

This is Part 2 of a two-part series. See Part 1 here: Dr. Ted Labuza on Slime, Bombs, and