Hi all, global climate food security catastrophe is here- ultimate human crisis.
This is in addition to planetary methane feedback catastrophe in making- ultimate planetary crisis.
All the meltwater on top of Greenland has resulted in a record loss of Greenland surface ice albedo.
This combines with the record loss of Northern hemisphere snow albedo
and record loss already of Arctic summer sea ice volume- with thinned sea ice having lower albedo than the normal ice.
So we already have a record loss of Arctic albedo and it has to be this, which on top of global warming, is causing the unprecedented extent and severity of Northern hemisphere drought.
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice albedo has already been projected in the published science to lead to increased Northern hemisphere drought together with the increased climate variability and other extreme events.
You'll see from the attached image that every single best agricultural region in the Northern hemisphere is being hit by drought. It’s worse than my worst global warming nightmare.
Because this drought is the result of the Arctic albedo loss feedback caused by global warming and the albedo loss is only going to get worse every summer we can only expect the drought to get worse.
It's going get worse in any case because it's happening in today's global warming of 0.8° C and where absolutely committed to 3 times this warming- I make it a definite fourfold increase.
If this wasn't bad enough we also have a sustained rapid increase in atmospheric methane (having already increased two a half times with industrialisation) which the scientists are agreed on is due to methane feedback emissions. The emissions from warming peatlands with Arctic peatland emissions increasing most rapidly. In addition to this contribution of methane from subsea methane hydrates cannot be excluded according to the scientists. Again as this is due to feedback response to global warming and the methane feedback omissions can only increase and the only way to stop them is to cool the Arctic. If the methane emissions are not stopped obviously total planetary climate runaway catastrophe is inevitable. Apart from AMEG this situation is being totally ignored.
The longer we avoid this feedback fact and fail to intervene the less likely intervention is to save us.
Clearly this is a global climate planetary emergency and the first step has to be to acknowledge this emergency. Until we have governments acknowledging the emergency they are obviously not going to do anything. I hope the Crisis Forum will help in this.
As there is a planetary emergency it needs to be raised in the UN Security Council- global climate change has already been raised twice in the Security Council.
We need a planetary emergency Apollo Manhattan Gaia type project to fast-track the development of the best and safest technologies that we need now to survive. That includes
-improved zero carbon energy sources technologies storage devices and transmissions
-improved safer geo-engineering Arctic cooling methods
-artificial carbon sinks
-develop the methods for extracting carbon dioxide direct from the air and securing it
We need them all and we need them fast.
Peter C
From: John Nissen
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 7:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On Greenland and writing to your MP about Tory electricity market 'reforms'
Hi Michael,
I'm sorry. Emissions reductions just won't work on the necessary timescale. I don't see an alternative to geoengineering. Nobody has an alternative. And, whether you believe me on the severity of the crisis we face or not, the sooner we start the geoengineering the greater the risk reduction. What most scientist agree is that, once the sea ice has gone, it will be too late to do anything about it, and we will be doomed to accept the consequences - which are now becoming apparent, with Greenland Ice Sheet melting away, methane emissions escalating and weather extremes increasing in frequency as the jet stream gets stuck more often. So we have to try to prevent the sea ice disappearing - that is a huge challenge, but geoengineering has a good chance if we start promptly.
Cheers,
John
--
On 27/07/2012 14:44, Michael Northcott wrote:
Friends
I saw Greenland myself with a remarkable amount of meltwater on it in 2010 from a plane on the way to a public lecture on the ethics of climate change in Texas (and yes academics need to fly yes and I need to work on that though I believe that invites to talk to large numbers of Americans about climate change may still justify a flight given how critical the USA is to this problem). I posted to this list then - at least I think I did - that there was clearly something unusual going on as the science also testified and as reflected in the UK weather. I see no problem in now speaking and writing about the threat from Greenland as imminent - i.e. a twenty-first century threat to sea level rise of meters - rather than multi-centruy as the IPCC have until now argued. For support I append below a comment is free post from a Greenland scientific expert. This is not a 150 year event. It is not the apocalypse either. We are seeing the signs of the times speaking all the more clearly. There is still time to end vast fossil fuel subsidies and for governments to meet or hold to their commitments on decarbonisation. In this regard the most urgent email members of this list who are in the UK could send is to their MPs to urgently ask them to ask the Chancellor and the DECC minister not to abandon the UK's commitment to a zero carbon electricity sector by 2030 and consign us to a future dependent on insecure Russian gas. Letters to MPs have more effect than letters to the BBC, or posts to this forum. I continue to believe that the political, and not extreme apocalyptic pessimism and calls for extra political action such as unilateral geoengineerging - is the way we must engage the climate crisis.
Cheers
Michael
a.. Edward Hanna
b.. guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 July 2012 10.46 EDT
c.. Jump to comments (…)
Greenland's ice sheet. Click for full image. Photograph: Reuters
I wasn't hugely surprised to see the news from Nasa aboutunprecedented melting of most of the Greenland ice sheet surface. Much of Greenland has been experiencing record warmth since May, and on the 29th of that month the weather station in the extreme south reached a positively balmy 24.8C, which set a new record May temperature for the country; this is significant because records from several weather stations extend back to the late 19th century.
The unusually warm conditions prevailed for much of June and into July, with the Danish Meteorological Institute website showing Greenland temperature anomalies about 2-4C higher than the 1961-90 baseline average during these last three months. Kangerlussuaq, the "gateway to Greenland" in the southwest, reached 24.6C on 10 July, just as the record melt reported by Nasa was under way.
This comes against a background of Greenland already having warmed 2.3C on average in summer over the past 20 years; this might not sound a great deal but is more than three times greater than the northern hemisphere average temperature increase of 0.5C in the same period.
For every 1C rise in temperature, the resulting effect is to increase the amount of melt by around a third, so we might expect double the climatological "normal" amount of meltwater being produced by the ice sheet during June and July this year.
The Nasa satellite picture of melt covering most of the ice sheet surface on 12 July (corroborated by several independent satellite methods and research groups) is dramatic, and several key Greenland scientists have confirmed it is unprecedented in the satellite record going back to the late 1970s. However, Nasa also cites evidence from ice cores at the summit of the ice sheet that suggest similar wholesale melting events occur once every 150 years on average, and the last one was in 1889. If this is this case, the recent melt may be due to natural climate variability, so do we have anything to worry about?
I consider we have good reason for concern. My own work, in collaboration with various international groups including the Danish Meteorological Institute and Free University of Brussels, involves analysing Greenland temperature records and running computer models of meltwater losses and mass balance of the ice sheet.
The last six summers since have seen successive record warmth and surface melt and runoff of that meltwater signalling increased mass loss from the ice sheet. This tallies with satellite observations from several independent methods showing a significant and accelerating mass loss of 250bn tonnes per year from the ice sheet averaged over the past five years or so. Although we cannot yet reliably predict how the ice sheet will respond to ongoing global warming the general prognosis is not good: more warmth clearly means more melting.
Moreover, recent changes in the northern hemisphere polar jet stream in summer – which may well be related to human-enhanced global warming – have led to more warm air being drawn up over the flank of the ice sheet, contributing to the enhanced regional warming and extra icemelt.
Even without sustained global warming, the Greenland ice sheet is living on borrowed time. If all the ice sheet melts, sea levels will rise by more than seven meters. Although it will take several thousand years for the ice to melt in its entirety according to current estimates, it is quite possible that the ice sheet could add up to several tens of centimetres to the global sea level by 2100. This would make many coastal communities more vulnerable to flooding and storm surges.
George Osborne's gas push has shattered the climate change consensusThe chancellor's push for gas power has repoliticised an array of environmental and economic issues, argues James Murray
a.. Share7
b..
c..
a.. Email a.. James Murray for for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
b.. guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 July 2012 05.58 EDT
c.. Jump to comments (…)
Pressure gauges at a gas power station in Newport. George Osborne's backing for gas power threatens the UK's cross-party climate change consensus, says James Murray Photograph: Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images
When the history of climate change in the UK is written, probably from a bunker somewhere in Northern Scandinavia, the last few months will be noted as the moment when the country's admirable political consensus on the need to tackle climate threats and build a green economy finally shattered.
The UK does not have the world's most vibrant green economy - how can it when the government has managed to engineer the second serious recession in three years - but it does have several advantages that has made the country a highly attractive proposition for green businesses and investors.
We boast excellent natural renewable energy resources, an admirable science and engineering skills base, and, while it might not be at its most popular right now, the City of London gives green businesses access to significant levels of capital and financial expertise. But most of all we had a remarkably solid political consensus on the need to tackle climate change and nurture the development of a green economy.
Our political leaders obviously differed on which precise policies would best drive green growth, but there was a broad agreement that climate change represents an existential threat to the global economy and as such a greener economic settlement is required. This consensus, coupled with significant support from business and civil society, enabled the passage of the world's first Climate Change Act, laid the foundations for a series of progressive green policies, and helped cement the green economy's position as one of the fastest growing sectors in our otherwise moribund economy.
But, in the space of a few short months, Chancellor George Osborne has shattered that consensus - a consensus that was hard-won, carefully nurtured, and essential to all of our economic and environmental futures.
In attempting a coup of UK energy policy that would have foisted his vision to turn the country into a "gas hub" upon us all, the Chancellor has repoliticised an array of environmental and economic issues. Politicians may argue about the finer points of green policy, but in the interests of tackling climate change and improving energy security there should be a cross-party consensus on the desirability of cost effective low carbon technologies over high carbon alternatives.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey did a good job yesterday at drawing a veil over the disagreements that have marred the last few weeks, talking of "misunderstandings" with the Treasury, reiterating that UK wants to see investment in both gas and renewables, and stressing that the "debate" on whether to allow unabated gas-fired power plants post 2030 will continue in the autumn and will be based on evidence rather than politics.
But looking past Davey's warm words the political fight over the past month has been brutal.
There have been late night meetings, last ditch compromises, leaked documents from all sides, and plenty of bruised reputations. The Treasury has broken every rule in the book on good governance, re-opening deals that were finalised last year, ignoring evidence and consultation responses, linking renewables and gas policy in a way that both sides of the debate agree is detrimental to investor certainty, and attempting to interfere in issues of intricate policy detail that are clearly the domain of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
It must have been more than a little embarrassing yesterday for Davey to have to answer the question "who is responsible for UK energy policy", and I am told senior Lib Dems are privately furious at the way Osborne tried to bounce them into signing up to a gas-land vision that would effectively torch the party's green credentials.
None of this should detract from the fact that the Lib Dems pulled off a significant, if qualified victory, yesterday.
The concessions that had to be handed to the Treasury in the form of completely unnecessary calls for evidence on costs for wind and solar energy will do the renewables sector no favours and will further fuel the impression that investors cannot be 100 per cent certain of the medium-term policy environment. But Davey did a good job of reassuring people that changes are very unlikely and if they do come committed investments will be protected.
Equally, the proposed consultations on tidying up the overlap between the RO and feed-in tariff regimes may look like house-keeping, but it could represent a major blow to mid-sized projects and further add to the sense that the government is not interested in supporting the kind of community-scale projects that can challenge the Big Six's dominance.
But these caveats aside, this is a generally good package of support that will drive investment over the next four years. Expect a rush of sub-5MW solar, wind, and anaerobic digestion projects over the next six months as developers try to get projects up and running before any further changes to the scheme, followed by four years when biomass and onshore and offshore wind continue to cement their position as one of the UK's fastest growing energy categories. Davey is right: billions of pounds will be invested and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created.
Moreover, it is great to see Davey and the Lib Dems resisting Osborne's demands and demonstrating that if they stick to their guns that they can secure support for a green economy that the Chancellor obviously has little or no interest in.
But despite this victory it is also clear that there is now going to be an almighty row in the autumn over numerous aspects of the Energy Bill, not least the proposals for a decarbonisation target for the electricity sector, which according to spin-meisters in the Treasury will now never see the light of day. The Chancellor is effectively attempting to tear up the Climate Change Act and fire the trigger on a full scale dash for gas - the mood music for green investors is appalling.
Davey yesterday tried to downplay the row, pointing out that DECC's strategy has always been to keep its options open by supporting a balanced energy mix featuring renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and some gas. He has a point, but this is now all a question of scale. DECC wants a balanced mix that takes advantage of our relatively modest domestic gas reserves and sees some unabated gas, but plenty more being used in harness with CCS or as back up power. Osborne, as laid bare by his bullying letter to Davey, wants a "gas hub" with unabated gas a "core" part of our energy mix for decades to come. The green NGOs are not exaggerating: this is a fight for the credibility of the Climate Change Act, the future of the low carbon economy, and the chance to lead the world in emerging green technologies. If all barriers to gas are removed and rapid investment is authorised over the next 10 years, then it will indisputably crowd out investment in lower carbon alternatives, including nuclear and CCS, as well as renewables.
The big question for green businesses and investors now is what happens next?
In the short term, the answer has to be a surge in investment in low carbon projects. Yes, the Chancellor is not helping and the political risk will probably add to the price of capital. But the renewables obligation, the soon-to-be-launched Green Deal, and the government's various other green policies are good enough to drive investment.
In the medium term, businesses have a huge role to play in ensuring that this autumn's battle for the future of the UK's energy policy is won by those who respect the need to curb carbon emissions and build a green economy.
One of the biggest positives to come out of the recent row between Davey and Osborne was that plenty of businesses and industry groups, including the influential CBI, wanted to see a deal that protected renewables. The gas industry lobbyists may have been in the chancellor's ear, but plenty of progressive businesses made it known publicly that they did not want the green agenda to be derailed. The business community is the one sector that has the leverage to convince the Treasury to rethink its anti-green stance, and perhaps even convince the Prime Minister (disappointingly absent throughout this row) that he needs a new Chancellor. With figures having just confirmed the UK's economy is performing even worse than had been expected, now is the perfect time for green businesses to unite and vocally make the case for low carbon investment.
Finally, in the long term green businesses desperately need a strategy of depoliticisation. It will be difficult to publicly condemn the Chancellor, while also urging people to try and take the political heat out of the debate, but that is what has to be done. Both economically and environmentally this issue is far too important to be politicised, particularly when there are strong centre-left and centre-right ideas that will be essential to the development of a successful green economy. But the past 12 months have shown worrying signs that we are seeing the Tea Party-fication of British politics when it comes to climate change and green business - this is a trend that the green economy simply cannot afford.
We need to work out a way to get back to that period when there was explicit cross party support for the need to tackle climate change and develop more sustainable business models. A period that gave us the current broadly positive policy environment, the foundations for some of the UK's fastest growing green business, and the Climate Change Act - a piece of legislation that is thankfully now the main barrier to Osborne delivering his vision for fossilised vision for Gas-land UK.
--
Michael Northcott
Sent with Sparrow
On Friday, July 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Alastair McIntosh wrote:
Brian … thank you for getting back … and yes, what you say about huge areas of common ground is very important, and applies equally to my dispute with the AMEG people.
You make 6 points below and I’ll post my answers in to your text in green.
Go well (Help … I can’t turn this green ink off now!).
Alastair
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Orr
Sent: 27 July 2012 12:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Hello Alistair,
Just to acknowledge your very full and fair response to my critique of your philosophical position on climate change developments, or to be more precise, my understanding of your philosophical position. I must give myself a pat on the back because it would seem my understanding is not a travesty of the 'real thing', as evidenced in your extended reply. To be less than encouraging, I'm still left with plenty of difficulties, but who says that has to militate against good debate. I think it is pretty obvious that there are huge areas of common ground between us because otherwise the discussion we've started wouldn't have been possible.
It is clear that there many 'sub-texts' lurking under the essential disagreement between us on how seriously should the underlying AMEG contention be taken. I think these sub-texts are important is giving a context for discussing the physical process going on now which we could call "the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Arctic". But it would be a problem keeping all these sub-texts going at the same time.
So, while in no way suggesting I would like to abandon the interesting and challenging 'sub-texts' that have come up, I'm definitely drawn to focusing on trying to ascertain from your good self and other crisis forumers where lies the greatest doubts that "the Arctic is the right tree to be barking up", to use your phraseology.
I hope to come back to you shortly and having a go at putting you on the spot on this particular question, in the spirit of fair debate, of course.
For the record, and for another time perhaps, as I consider they are sub-servient to the climate change crisis, a quick list of the sub-texts where I disagree with you.
i The sickness of modern society is a reflection of ourselves. I contend we 'accidently' arrived at a system that brain-washes the public to its own needs. "A 'free-market' 1984". The Romans made a good go of it realising how far you can take the public with bread and circuses. But humans have not always made the same error - the ancient Eastern civilisations seem to have made a better job of it - using the same natural material - homo sapiens. (Although they have crumbled in the face of consumerist capitalism.)
I think you make an important point there that we have “accidentally” arrived at this position – and eloquently worded too. I see that auto-brainwashing as an inevitable part of human cultural evolution, and this is part of what gives me hope while lacking optimism. It’s like, we’ve only been on the planet as homo sapiens sapiens for 200,000 years. We’re not yet teenagers relative to many other species. Relating this to Eastern civilisations, this is why I’ve been willing to give the God of the Bible a second look. Read as an historical document, you can see a kind of evolution of God, or at least, of the human understanding and relationship thereto. The God of Abraham who almost required human sacrifice, or of Joshua and Moses who required genocide of the people we would today call Palestinians, softens as the later prophets beat their swords into ploughshares and move through to the full-on nonviolence of the Cross. I find that cultural evolutionary trajectory makes for very interesting theology, and to relate parts of this to climate change, I’d urge having a look at Stefan Skrimshire’s edited collection on climate change and apocalyptic thinking (Future Ethics, Continuum, 2010). Asian religions have their own take on this kind of thing – and while (as with most theology) I do not read it literally, their sense of human history cycling through gold, silver, bronze and iron ages, and periodically restoring, makes for interesting metaphor to reflect on.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
