John’s Blog/Newsletter: SEA LEVEL RISE NOW

Paris Climate Accord: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

My blog post last week pointed out a grossly misleading headline, “Global Warming Could Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero.” As I explained, we do not even have a plan for how to get close to zero emissions. The vague plans being discussed aim for zero emissions by the year 2050 or decades beyond. As shown in this graph from the International Energy Agency, even with the industrial and travel slowdown from Covid-19, there has only been a slight slowdown of carbon dioxide emissions, the cause of the warming.

There was great excitement last week when President Joe Biden started the process to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. I echo the congratulations — but that is only the first step, and easily misunderstood in its significance.

There are several ways to view the accord: GOOD is my support of setting a specific goal to halt runaway planetary warming; the BAD, refers to the agreement only setting voluntary, rather vague goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; the UGLY is that even if the goals were magically met, we would still at least double the amount of abnormal heating that has become evident in recent years.

It’s that heat that is causing the polar ice caps to melt, changing our weather, melting the glaciers, raising sea level, causing more wildfires, heat waves, etc. So, contrary to public perception, the Paris Climate Accord is not at all a solution to the worsening climate crisis. It’s a very modest and tepid resolve, but at least it’s a starting point. As the famous quote from Lao-Tzu says, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

The task ahead of us is daunting, even unprecedented. But just as if we had let our personal fitness, weight or finances get way out of control, the first step to recovery is… taking the first step. Good things can follow once we commit to changing course. As we enter this new year, this new decade, and this URGENT search for a path to live in balance with our climate system, we must be positive… and realistic. On this journey to stop the rising temperature and to eventually lower the temperature, we will have to make some profound changes and innovations.

The path is not yet completely clear, but the start is.

You can take personal steps to reduce your contribution to greenhouse gas emissions such as driving less, less airplane flights, buying an electric car, etc. Those personal actions allow us to feel like we are contributing; they do set good examples and can have impact if followed by millions of others. But given how energy consumption is woven throughout the diverse societies of nearly eight billion people, we need to find new ways to scale far beyond the effects of individual action.

Obviously regulations will be required. Among the many types of policy and regulation, economic incentives to transition off fossil fuels on an urgent basis can be one of the most effective ways to achieve change. I believe that millions of free market decisions are an important vehicle to achieve that goal. Quite a number of organizations now advocate some form of carbon tax or carbon price incentive as a way to shift energy patterns at scale. In other words, if we make fossil fuel use increasingly expensive, and subsidize or create rebates for renewable energy usage, we can cause vast change much faster than by individual actions. These increased carbon taxes, or fees, can be offset by reduction of other taxes, such as income and sales tax. Leading organizations promoting political support for “carbon pricing” include:

Citizens Climate Lobby www.citizensclimatelobby.org has likely been the most effective at promoting these concepts.
350.org www.350.org has focused on acceptance of the goal to get carbon dioxide levels back down to 350 ppm (parts per million) from the current 415 ppm
There is even an “eco-right” Republican based organization, www.republicen.org

Each of their websites will give you additional information.

Looking at the News This Week…

This article from Bloomberg Green documents the ominous trends of increased ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica. To quote the lead:

“Melting on the ice sheets has accelerated so much over the past three decades that it’s now in line with the worst-case climate warming scenarios outlined by scientists. A total of 28 trillion metric tons of ice was lost between 1994 and 2017, according to a research paper published in The Cryosphere on Monday. The research team led by the University of Leeds in the U.K. was the first to carry out a global survey of global ice loss using satellite data. “The ice sheets are now following the worst-case climate warming scenarios set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” lead author Thomas Slater said in a statement. “Although every region we studied lost ice, losses from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have accelerated the most.”

To read the full article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-25/climate-change-is-melting-ice-in-every-continent-new-study-shows

COMING NEXT WEEK: I will be sharing information about a special Fact-Finding trip to Greenland in late August.

By John Englander January 26, 2021 Sea Level Rise

11 Comments

Sean

- 4 years ago Reply

Apparently the single most impactful action an individual can make is to reduce/stop consumption of red meat and dairy. Driving less, consuming less… what’s good for the planet is generally the same as what’s good for the individual.

As far as policy is concerned I think that we need to make the low carbon option aspirational, rather than a top down imposition.

John Englander

- 4 years ago Reply

The point is that we have to be realistic on the difference between setting a goal and the means to achieve it. The most frequently cited analysis says that if everyone in the world gave up eating meat and dairy, we would eliminate about one sixth of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the warming — and I don’t think it’s realistic for everyone to become vegan. So, while individual commitments such as those you suggest, are good, we need to be realistic. The warming, the ice melting, and the sea rising are all accelerating. Your preferred approach will not stop them at all.

Richard Bailey

- 4 years ago Reply

As long as fossil fuels are cheap and plentiful, people will continue to use them. If a small tax were added to them and increased annually, their use will decline.

If fossil fuel prices go up due to the tax, just return the tax, in equal shares, to everyone, thereby helping low and middle income folks, and stimulating the economy, which we really need now.

Richard

- 4 years ago Reply

Sometimes wonder why people think giving up meat and dairy would reduce the minor role AGW plays. Is that one sixth, one sixth of the AGW? Is it one sixth of all GW? The later is noise even if in the maths as there’s no way such claim could’ve been legitimately falsified. If the former, then what percentage of AGW causes GW and is it enough to care?

Maybe too much of a laymen and should likely be asking for the study to be cited (Will be attempting to look it up in a bit.)

My issues are more technical and from an engineer’s perspective. If we don’t have a meat industry, then we don’t have a viable fertilizer industry, and we in turn don’t have the staple crops most in the 1st World consume. Secondary to this, though this a primary issue, almost no human infant can make it past the age of 10 without some form of meat consumption. There’s other issues I find that kind of argumentation that bother me. It’s just assumed everything is so simple that removing one thing or another would solve all of the world’s ills. Are the blindspots so large they fail to understand there’s rodents and more thriving off of the farms? Do they think if we removed cattle for instance that we wouldn’t replace them with plants which also emit GHG? Do they even understand that the greening of Earth is a problem and not a beneficial?

Don’t know why I’m commenting today, but I’m kind of tired of the blame game end of this world. No one is taking it serious (Ignoring Englander here.) in the public sphere. Here in Colorado the Colorado River is drying up. Once fed over 3,500 counties, and last I checked was down to under 700 and the State was stating as a matter of fact that we were going to be declare water shortages here. Here matters, because this here is a water source. What do they think is required for those plants to grow, just rain? Have they even been to a farm before?

I need to stop as this is going to turn into a book worth of ranting if I don’t. Really bothers me that the law is in the way in terms of Colorado with even our water table problems. It’s not just that we’re having puerile conversations about the causes, it’s that we’re not seeking to correct the issues that’re preventing us from doing something about the real problems.

Sorry Mr. Englander, I’m going to read you posting later. Don’t know why I bothered reading the comments. Just reminded me too much of what I read on YouTube, Facebook and so on. Too often just appeals to audiences that don’t have the background to even understand what they’re talking about (Descartes, Justin Kruger, etc…), and worse, far too many times formally educated misnomers. I still remember being in school and having them reverse their positions more than once. I can’t fault my peers for believing the noise that is noise on our ends. We were taught this nonsense. I think I’m just bugged that their comments are a reminder that I have the same faults and am likely just as blind to it. Don’t want to be reminded by how many mistakes I make every day.

Diego Matter

- 4 years ago Reply

John, you make a few good points – sad, but true. As much I’d like to be optimistic, we’ll probably have to deal with a much changed climate no matter what. It’s just to late. But we should still try our best.

Andy

- 4 years ago Reply

It’s definitely frustrating that even well intentioned people in positions of power don’t see the full scope of the situation. It might take most of Earths coastal cities being flooded daily before there’s enough political will for the kind of global programs that we actually need. It’s daunting, but we’re going to need to actively COOL the planet. Negative carbon emissions… In the meantime, I’m just going to try to go negative myself.

There was a good Times article about the Doughnut Economic model. Basically there’s a floor set by basic human needs like food, shelter, clothing. And a ceiling set by resource and climate factors. Capitalism would function as normal within that floor and ceiling. That sweet spot is where our freedom would lie. We would lose a LOT of freedom in the rich countries if we implemented this on a global scale like we’ll have to at some point.

Either way… WE GOT THIS!

Keith Foreman

- 4 years ago Reply

So, sea levels are rising due to glaciers melting. Glaciers are melting due to global warming. Global warming is due solely to increased CO2 (350 to 415 ppm) in the atmosphere? That’s it? No other factors? Do you really think it’s that simple? Do you believe that if we built enough machines around the globe to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere to levels below 350 ppm, then issue resolved? If so, you and some many other climate experts are blind. A bigger factor in glacier melt is staring everybody in the face, and I don’t read or hear anybody discussing it. Go back and look at pics of melting glaciers and tell me what you see or don’t see. It’s obvious to me.

John Englander

- 4 years ago Reply

No one said it was simple. In fact even if we could such the CO2 out of the atmosphere as you suggest, sea level will still rise for a very long time, due the heat already stored in the sea and the “lag times” involved with the thermal dynamics.

Keith Foreman

- 4 years ago Reply

Warmer ocean temperatures only applies to floating ice. Majority of ice/glaciers are on land. Glaciers are dirty, even black in places due to pollution, dust, petroleum soot, etc.. Any color that’s not white absorbs heat from the sun instead of reflecting it. White sheets are being placed over glaciers in Europe to slow the melt. I watched several years ago on the science channel where scientists placed a large white sheet the size of a football field, maybe larger over a slushy melting glacier, and came back days later. Ice on side of sheet was still slushy, but ice underneath sheet was frozen solid. Same temperature. Jet stream blows from North America over Greenland, flights to/ from Europe go over Greenland. That’s why we see more melting there than Antarctica. This fact is a greater factor than just CO2 along. You really think just an increase of less than 100 parts per MILLION of CO2 is the sole root cause?

John Englander

- 4 years ago Reply

Keith — To some degree your case is valid, but I am afraid we disagree on much. I am not going to debate this with you, but will offer a few comments that may be of value. I am aware of the experiments on the relatively small European glaciers to cover them to improve reflectance of solar heat. That simply does not scale to the Greenland ice sheet, which is hundreds of times larger than any European glacier. It’s absurd to suggest covering Greenland, let alone Antarctica, seven times larger.
As for your underlying apparent disputes:
1) To say that the warming ocean only melts applies to sea ice is very misleading. 93% of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system by the greenhouse gases, is stored in the sea, a virtual heat battery. That will lead to melting of the ice on Antarctica and Greenland for centuries — the two sources of 98% of potential sea level rise (SLR).
2) While it is true that the darkening of the glaciers and ice sheets does accelerate melting and raising sea level, there is a new and rapidly increasing factor that you overlook. “Cryoconite” is the term to describe the ultra fine rock dust that blows up onto the glaciers. It is the product of the glaciers grinding bedrock and is simply a product of the retreating glacier due to the accelerated melting.
3) You suggest that a change in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is insignificant. Nothing could be further from the basic physics going back to the work of Fourier, Arrhenius, Tydall, etc. In a relatively balanced system, small changes can have huge effect. Calories and our personal weight are one example; the effects of inputs and outputs on financial accounts is another. At 414 ppm, CO2 is 50% higher than in millions of years.
All advanced life has evolved on Earth during the cycles of the “ice ages” — the 2.58 million years of the Pleistocene and Holocene. We have now broken out of that and are in new territory. FYI, I just read an article that you might find illuminating. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/extreme-climate-change-history/617793/
I hope some of this is helpful, but will not commit to further debate on these points about which I am confident. Best wishes.

John Moon

- 4 years ago Reply

Cheers John, thanks for the link.

“All advanced life has evolved on Earth during the cycles of the “ice ages” — the 2.58 million years of the Pleistocene and Holocene.”

For warm blooded creatures like mammals the waste heat from even an inefficient CPU is an advantage when living in cooler conditions. The relationship between volume and surface area gives larger creatures more of a survival advantage the lower temperatures fall.

By chance I had just watched the documentary below (Deutsche Welle – Who were the Neanderthals?) before I read the article from The Atlantic. The Neanderthals did well over a wide range of climatic conditions by altering their behaviour but their population density levels were trivial compared to those of anatomically modern humans now.

There are hard lower and upper limits of temperature for “human” functionality, to exceed those you need technology. You have to consider humidity for the upper limit as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p8tFcIQ8K4