[Vision2020] 2-6-13 Environmentalresearchweb: "Are we heading for 6° temperature rise?"

[Ted Moffett]

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/52289

Feb 6, 2013
Are we heading for 6° temperature rise?

Climate scientist Kevin Anderson believes scientists at the interface of
climate and policy may have used naive assumptions when modelling for a 2°C
target.

They say never judge a book by its cover, but chances are a lecture
entitled "Real clothes for the emperor: facing the challenges of climate
change" will be fairly down-to-earth. That proved to be the case when Kevin
Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the
University of Manchester, UK, gave the Cabot Annual Lecture 2012 in
Bristol, UK, in November 2012.

In response to an audience member who commented that most climate
scientists were simply trying to pay their bills, Anderson said "I don't
think it's OK to walk past a mugging on the way to pay the mortgage.
Climate scientists need to be good citizens too. Our science tells us we
are killing people in poor parts of the world by putting our lights on and
we need to make people think about that. Scientists need to start standing
up for what they believe in. By staying quiet we are legitimizing it."

Back in 2011, Anderson published a
paper<http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/45239>in
the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A on how he felt today's integrated
assessment models, which combine climate data with economic data, are
dangerously flawed. Why? Because they are based on "naive" assumptions for
factors such as emission growth rates and the date of emission peaks, they
limit annual energy-emission reduction rates to between 2 and 4%, and
assume uptake of geoengineering as well as a high penetration of nuclear
power alongside untested carbon-capture and storage technologies.

"Because integrated assessment models typically use similar and
inappropriate sets of assumptions, they repeatedly come up with the same
narrow and fundamentally flawed answers," Anderson told
environmentalresearchweb at the time. In his November talk, on the topic of
emission growth rates used in models that were lower than real-world growth
rates, he said "We've always underplayed everything we possibly can – we've
done exactly what the sceptics said but in reverse." In some cases, reports
have been issued that assumed emissions peaked several years before the
date of the report, leading to "policy recommendations premised on owning a
tardis". Similarly, some scenarios assumed that emissions from developing
countries would exceed those from developed countries well into the future,
whereas in fact this happened in 2006.

"With few exceptions the scenarios out there hide or massage historical
emissions and emission trends," said Anderson. "So they change the framing
of where we are today. They underestimate short-term growth out to the peak
of emissions. The peak choice is Machiavellian at best. No-one thinks that
we're going to peak in 2016 and yet virtually every model will peak in
2016, which gives you a nice answer for your policymaker."

Anderson thinks it has been obvious for the last 10 years that we are
pointing towards 4–6° "but it's interesting to see orthodox organizations
coming out and saying this now". International Energy Agency (IEA) chief
economist Fatih Birol emphasizes how current emission trends are "perfectly
in line with a temperature rise of 6 °C", which he notes "would have
devastating consequences for the planet", said Anderson. And consultancy
PwC's Low Carbon Economy Index 2012 reports that even doubling our rate of
carbon-emission reduction would still lead to emissions that are consistent
with 6° of warming. "To give ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding
2° will require a six-fold improvement in our rate of decarbonization,"
states the report.

The Copenhagen Accord aims "to hold the increase in global temperature
below 2° Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with
science and on the basis of equity". Anderson stressed that it is below,
not a 50:50 chance of, 2°, and that the phrase "consistent with science" is
quite radical and "on the basis of equity" even more so. "Most nations have
signed up to this so I think we should hold our leaders to account," he
said, adding that just this May, leaders of the G8 nations at a meeting in
Camp David reiterated their commitment to do what was necessary to maintain
"the increase in global temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,
consistent with science". The UK government has adopted the Committee on
Climate Change's budget for a 63% chance of exceeding 2°. "Can that 60-odd
per-cent chance be reconciled with 'hold the temperature below 2 °C and
take action on the basis of science'? Our job as scientists is to stand up
and say 'hang on, that doesn't really fit'." But according to Anderson,
scientists repeatedly stay quiet and silence is consent. "That process of
consent is really quite invidious in the whole climate-change story."
Time for change

So what is the solution? Since infrastructure lasts a long time, Anderson
believes it will take 20 to 25 years to get significant decarbonization of
energy supply systems. "It's energy demand that really matters," he said.
It's possible to change demand technologies in one to 10 years and to
change behaviour immediately; most car journeys use vehicles that are less
than eight years old, for example. "I'm not saying the supply side is not
important but it cannot get you off the [emission] curve anywhere near fast
enough," Anderson continued. "You'll have much higher temperatures if you
just rely on engineers to come up with [supply] technologies that will
solve the problem in 2025 or 2030."

Anderson thinks the group of climate scientists working at the interface
between science and policy are massaging their assumptions to give a more
palatable picture and make a 2016 emission peak sound doable. "Some people
ask if James Hansen is too extreme," he said, "but extreme adjectives
reflect the science." Scientists using words like "challenging" and
"doable" make a 2° limit for temperature rise sound feasible, he added. But
in the pub or at Chatham House Rules events, many scientists are saying "we
cannot tell the public that" when it comes to reporting how low our chances
are of staying within the 2° boundary. "I think we're on for 4–6 °C but we
just can't be open about it," said Anderson.

In his talk, Anderson detailed how a respected political scientist has said
"too much has been invested in 2 °C for us to say it is not possible – it
would give a sense of hopelessness that we may as well just give in".
Building on this, a government scientist told Anderson "We can't tell
ministers and politicians that it [2 °C] is impossible; we can say it's a
stretch, ambitious but that with political will 2 °C is still feasible."

Anderson's view, in contrast, is that "I'm paid by the state and I will say
exactly what my findings are". He reckons 4° is challenging but achievable.
But a 4° global-average future could mean temperature rises on land of
5–6°, along with large regional variations. Potentially, the hottest days
of the year could see an additional 6–8° of warming. Roughly 20–30,000
people died in the 2003 heatwave in Europe as it was, without any
additional warming on top. "There's a widespread view that a 4° future is
incompatible with organized global community as we see it today," said
Anderson. "It's likely beyond adaptation. I would go so far as to say that
we should avoid 4° at all costs."
Cutting the future

There is a small amount of good news. An outside chance of exceeding 2°
requires emission cuts of at least 10% per annum, said Anderson – basically
about a 40% reduction in energy consumption in the next three years, 70% by
2020 and complete decarbonization by 2030 – at least for the wealthier
nations. Anderson reckons about 40–60% of the world's energy emissions come
from 1–5% of the population. This includes "climate scientists, every
journalist, pontificator and sceptic, every other OECD academic, everyone
who gets on a plane once a year" and anyone earning more than £30 k a year.
"So we're the major emitters – we know who they are. Are we prepared to
make changes to our lives now or have them forced upon us?" Anderson
believes there is a lot we can do. "We don't require the whole world to do
something, we require a small proportion of the world to change what they
do today for the next 10 or 20 years while we put low-carbon supply in
place."

Behaviour change can be instant, he said. Cutting energy use by, for
example, turning off lights today can save more carbon than you might think
because of the energy lost in electricity production, transmission and so
on. Currently a typical vehicle in the UK emits around 175 g of carbon
dioxide per kilometre but many diesel and petrol cars now achieve levels
below 100 g and some manage as low as 75 g. Despite this, the EU target for
average car emissions is an uninspiring 130 g of carbon dioxide per
kilometre by 2015. Setting ambitious targets, along with a slight rise in
the number of passengers per vehicle, could reduce emissions 60–70% by
2020, added Anderson.

That said, a maximum temperature rise of two degrees is looking more and
more unlikely. "It's a wake-up call of where our rose-tinted spectacles
have brought us," said Anderson. "Real hope if it's to arise at all will be
from a bare assessment of the scale of the challenge that we now face and
that's what I've tried to show [in this talk]." With clarity and
imagination Anderson thinks we could.
 About the author

Liz Kalaugher is editor of environmentalresearchweb.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130207/d98135a4/attachment.html>