Updating IPCC AR6: still bound for catastrophe

International group of climatologists launch a set of annually updated climate indicators to track human induced global warming through time.

This decade is absolutely critical for climate action if we are to avoid climate catastrophe. However, up to now we have lacked a standardized set of measures of the level of human-induced warming for tracking our progress over times as short as a year.

So far, the gold standard against which progress can be measured has been the IPCC’s cycle of Assessment Reports (e.g., the latest being AR6, completed this year). These have been published on cycle times of 6 to 7 years.

A team of 50 authors from major climate science institutes and universities around the world under lead author, Piers Maxwell Forster of the Priestly Centre University of Leeds, have set out to publish annually updated reliable global climate indicators in the public domain. This is based on the assessment methods used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report, to update the monitoring datasets and to produce updated estimates for key climate indicators. These include emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, surface temperature changes, the Earth’s energy imbalance, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget and estimates of global temperature extremes. As these measurements are traceable and consistent with IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel.

The preprint of their first update, Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: Annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and the human influence, was submitted for review (open for discussion on 05/05/2023) to the Copernicus journal Earth Systems Science Data.

Although still unreviewed, this work certainly provides the most up to date data on our progress towards reversing global warming while that might still be possible.

The news is bad. Although there are a few improvements in isolation, nothing we have done through the end of 2022 has been enough to perceptibly the rate of global warming.

Piers Maxwell Forster, et al. – 02/05/2023, Earth System Science Data

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: Annual update of largescale indicators of the state of the climate system and the human influence

Abstract. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement that will conclude at COP28 in December 2023. Evidence-based decision making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles.

We base this update on the assessment methods used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report, updating the monitoring datasets and to produce updated estimates for key climate indicators including emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, surface temperature changes, the Earth’s energy imbalance, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget and estimates of global temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open data, open science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7883758, Smith et al., 2023). As they are traceable and consistent with IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel.

The indicators show that human induced warming reached 1.14 [0.9 to 1.4] °C over the 2013–2022 period and 1.26 [1.0 to 1.6] °C in 2022. Human induced warming is increasing at an unprecedented rate of over 0.2 °C per decade. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 57 ± 5.6 GtCO2e over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there are signs that emission levels are starting to stabilise, and we can hope that a continued series of these annual updates might track a real-world change of direction for the climate over this critical decade.

Read the complete article….

Some of the observations:

The first set of observations shows that most human carbon emissions have not slowed, although, although the slowing economy over COVID have somewhat slowed overall growth (although this appears to have resumed in 2022). The only area where have actually significantly slowed emissions is for regulated fluorinated gases (F-gas).

Figure 1: Annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by source, 1970-2021. Refer to Sect. 2.1 for a list of datasets. Starred datasets (*) indicate the sources used to compile global total greenhouse gas emissions in panel a. CO2 equivalent emissions in panels a and f are calculated using GWPs with a 100-year time horizon from the AR6 WGI Chapter 7 (Forster et al., 2021). F-gas emissions in panel a comprise only UNFCCC F-gas emissions (see Sect. 2.1 for a list of species). Not shown in panels d and e are biomass combustion emissions from GFED (Van Der Werf 2017), which are included in the aggregate estimate in panel a.

The next set of figures shows how effective the various gases in greenhouse layer in the atmosphere are at capturing solar radiation (i.e., “effective radiation forcing”). In 2a right facing bars represent a net positive forcing of higher temperatures, while the left facing bars represent the reflection of extra energy away from Earth. 2b shows a fairly abrupt increase in the forcing between 1960 and 1970, presumably due to the increasing annual rates of greenhouse gas emissions. Note: if the Earth is to have any chance to begin cooling the anthropogenic forcing (grey) needs to trend down, not to continue rising higher as it does here!

Figure 2: Effective radiative forcing from 1750-2022. (a) 1750-2022 change in ERF, showing best estimates (bars) and 5-95% uncertainty ranges (lines) from major anthropogenic components to ERF, total anthropogenic ERF, and solar 610 forcing.
Figure 2: Effective radiative forcing from 1750-2022.  (b) Time evolution of ERF from 1750 to 2022. Best estimates from major anthropogenic categories are shown along with solar and volcanic forcing (thin coloured lines), total (thin black line) and anthropogenic total (thick black line). 5-95% uncertainty in the anthropogenic forcing is shown in shaded grey. Note solar forcing in 2022 is a single-year estimate.

Because Earth currently suffers an imbalance between the solar energy it receives and what it radiates away to outer space as heat energy, the difference between energy received and energy radiated is stored as heat by raising the temperature of various components of planet’s mass (i.e., as the heat inventory). Figure 3a shows that the vast bulk is being stored at different water levels in the ocean, with virtually all of the remained represented by melted ice and the surface layer of soil. Again, if we are to even begin to reduce the rate of global warming, the graph of energy change must be changed to a down slope rather than the continuously rising one show here.

Figure 3b compares the IPCC’s estimates with the somewhat higher estimates presented in this paper.

Conclusion

There is absolutely no good news in the vast array of evidence assembled into these few graphs (assuming the work stands up to peer review, which it almost certainly will). Nothing humans have done to date has had a visible impact on the ominous trends into the climate crisis of the 6th global mass extinction in a ‘Hothouse Earth’ that will simply be too hot for many keystone species to survive physiologically. Beginning with Steffen et al’s, “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene” and “Tripping down the road to Earth’s Hothouse Hell and Global Mass Extinction“, a series of articles in Climate Sentinel News explains that falling into the hothouse hell will be as easy as falling off a cliff.

As noted herein above, if we are to get off that road to Hell before it is too steep for that to be possible, we basically have to turn the graphs shown above upside down, so the trends are back towards where they were in the first half of the last century. We won’t be able to do this as long as our governments continue protecting and subsidizing the fossil fuel industries that are still making things worse from one year to the next. Basically our governments will have to work together and mobilize a global war against the climate emergency. Individually, as is the case in global war, we’ll probably have to accept rationing of critical or polluting resources and some curtailment of our usual freedoms to make things worse….

It will be hard, but consider this: It took us more about 100 years from beginning in 1927 with 2 bn people and steampunk technology to accidentally warm the planet to its present state. Starting now, with 2023’s highly advanced and incredibly more powerful technologies and scientific knowledge, we should be able cool the planet back to a sustainable temperature.

The first step has to be fixing our political systems so they work for all humans rather than working to make a few vested special interests become insanely wealthy and powerful individuals at the expense of the planetary biosphere.


Featured Image:

Summary from the Copernicus ESDD article bringing reported values from IPCC AR6 report up to date at the end of 2022. The causal chain from emissions to resulting warming of the climate system. Emissions of GHG have 1190 increased rapidly over recent decades (panel a). These emissions have led to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of several GHGs including the three major well-mixed GHGs (panel b). The global surface temperature (shown as annual anomalies from an 1850–1900 baseline) has increased by around 1.15°C since 1850–1900 (panel c). The human-induced warming estimate is a close match to the observed warming (panel d). Whiskers show 5% to 95% ranges. Figure is modified from AR6 SYR (Figure 2.1, Lee et al., 2023).

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

Politics vs physical dangers and real death

IPCC warns we have only a few years left when climate action can reverse human caused global warming to avoid a crescendo of climate catastrophes

Unfortunately, we are living in a world where the greedy self-interests of billionaires and multi-national corporations tend to control media and politics. These special interests are threatened by things that must be done to slow and stop global warming. They use their power over the media and politicians to deny the need for and to prevent critically important climate action. However, the real-world understanding reported in the concluding summary of the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report on Climate Change (published this week) documents and explains the very real dangers and even mass deaths society faces if global warming is not stopped by 2030. We genuinely face a climate emergency that threatens human survival. To have any hope of organizing and implementing the kinds of statewide and national actions needed to stop the warming process citizens have to replace the parliamentary puppets of special interests with MPs who will genuinely work for the citizens who elected them. In New South Wales, how you vote this week is a life-and-death matter!

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formed by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations in 1988 to study and advise world governments on climate change. The IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers published this week was unanimously agreed to and signed off by the politically appointed representatives of all 195(!) member governments of the United Nations that form the World Meteorological Organization (normally only 170-180 governments participate in IPCC reviews). This unusual approval process required for IPCCs “summary reports” is intended to ensure that governments accept its findings as authoritative advice on which to base their actions (a 1:30 minute IPCC video explains).

I have explained that this approval process is highly conservative and cannot avoid downplaying the extent and dangers of climate change. In reality, the actual dangers to humanity are likely to be a lot worse than described by the IPCC. New South Wales residents who are currently voting on their state government (polls close on 25 March) should note that all the modeling and predictions discussed in the Report are based on weather and climate data collected only up to 2020. The models and predictions do not include evidence on or predict how extreme climate events have actually been: e.g.,Black Summer bushfires, more than two years of unprecedented and widespread flooding, extreme heatwaves and drought, etc. If you are living on the land or close to Nature, you will know that the reality you are living with is already significantly worse than anticipated by the IPCC.

At nearly 8,000 pages, the full report is virtually unreadable. Every statement is documented, justified, and qualified. Fortunately, the World Resources Institute has done an admirable job of highlighting critical content in a readable way:

Cover Image by: Anirut Thailand/Shutterstock (from the article)

by Sophie Boehm and Clea Schumer, 20/03/2024 in World Resources Institute – Insights

10 Big Findings from the 2023 IPCC Report on Climate Change

Today marks the release of the final installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), an eight-year long undertaking from the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change. Drawing on the findings of 234 scientists on the physical science of climate change, 270 scientists on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to climate change, and 278 scientists on climate change mitigation, this IPCC synthesis report provides the most comprehensive, best available scientific assessment of climate change.

It also makes for grim reading. Across nearly 8,000 pages, the AR6 details the devastating consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions around the world — the destruction of homes, the loss of livelihoods and the fragmentation of communities, for example — as well as the increasingly dangerous and irreversible risks should we fail to change course.

But the IPCC also offers hope, highlighting pathways to avoid these intensifying risks. It identifies readily available, and in some cases, highly cost-effective actions that can be undertaken now to reduce GHG emissions, scale up carbon removal and build resilience. While the window to address the climate crisis is rapidly closing, the IPCC affirms that we can still secure a safe, livable future.

Looking Ahead

The IPCC’s AR6 makes clear that risks of inaction on climate are immense and the way ahead requires change at a scale not seen before. However, this report also serves as a reminder that we have never had more information about the gravity of the climate emergency and its cascading impacts — or about what needs to be done to reduce intensifying risks.

Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) is still possible, but only if we act immediately. As the IPCC makes clear, the world needs to peak GHG emissions before 2025 at the very latest, nearly halve GHG emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero CO2 emissions around mid-century, while also ensuring a just and equitable transition. We’ll also need an all-hands-on-deck approach to guarantee that communities experiencing increasingly harmful impacts of the climate crisis have the resources they need to adapt to this new world. Governments, the private sector, civil society and individuals must all step up to keep the future we desire in sight. A narrow window of opportunity is still open, but there’s not one second to waste. [my emphasis]

Read the complete article….

Think about what this means!

As reported extensively in all Australian media today (21 May) the agreed IPCC summary says that near-term (i.e., ASAP!) climate action is urgent because the window is closing for us to secure a livable and sustainable future, and that: “The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years”. These and many other critically important points are clearly summarized in the Headline Statements, which are the overarching conclusions of the approved Summary for Policymakers. Taken together these provide a concise narrative as to why effective action on the climate emergency is so urgent.

If you care for your future and the future of your family and society, you need to take the IPCC’s cautions and warnings seriously. And consider what this means in a world where your political representatives are likely to be more concerned to satisfy the wants of their big donors and special interests rather than you or other citizens of their electorates. These big donors are developers, fossil fuel industries, miners, etc., who are more concerned about immediate profit rather than future survival.

Think: if you are a “rusted-on” voter who can be counted on to vote for the incumbent or party you have always voted for, especially in a ‘safe’ seat, your ‘representative’ has no reason to consider your future in any way, and can work full time for the special interests.

However, in Australia, we still live in a democracy where your considered vote can actually work to throw the bastards out, by electing someone you can reasonably trust to work for the community of those who vote rather than those who pay…. Given the nature and reality of the climate emergency, you should consider Vote Climate One’s motto:

We need to treat the climate emergency as a global war we are on track to lose unless we can focus our efforts on the only task that matters — reversing global warming. If we fail here no other tasks matter — our species will soon end up extinct no matter how we arrange the deck chairs on the burning ship.

How Vote Climate One can help

Science and politics

If you need more evidence that we need to change our governments, there is plenty on our Climate Sentinel News blog covering both science and politics.

How to vote

We don’t tell you how to vote. We work to help you achieve the results you want when you vote.

In Australia, Vote Climate One works to assess and rank how we think every party and independent candidate on the ballot in Federal and all State elections will respond to the climate crisis. Thanks to modern computer technology this is actually do-able. How we rank candidates is explained in our Climate Lens Traffic Light Assessment process. Sometimes, we’ll even get on the phone to find out more. The undeniable task of the climate lens is to prioritise the protection of everything we hold dear. The hubris of our species needs a dose of the reduction perspective tranquilizer encapsulated in this painting by Peter Trusler.

Peter Trusler – from his book, Thrice Told

Our conclusions are presented via downloadable and printer-friendly voting guides for each and every electorate in NSW. You can find the guide for your electorate here (in this case, Lismore). The electorate screen tells you how we can help. Parties and candidates we think will work for climate action are designated with green lights. Those who we think won’t or who haven’t given us much to go on, are designated with red lights, Those we think are better than the worst, but not fully trustworthy are designated orange.

If you are concerned to see action on climate change, number all the green-light independents and parties first. Thus, even if your number [1] selection doesn’t win, you still maximize the chances that someone else with good climate credentials will be elected. If you want detail to help you decide how to rank green-light candidates, the Research Tools provide links to candidate websites and other information about them.

As Rob and his grandchildren explain in the video, the printable voting guides make it easy for you to transfer your preferences to the ballot paper in the voting booth:

Remember, we are voting in hopes of leaving a happy future for our families and society.

About the featured image: Figure SPM.6 from Summary for Policymakers, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. There are a multitude of political choices that need to be made during this window. If we make good ones we can go on living in a world with a sustainable future. Bad choices will rapidly constrain our future to pathways that are likely to lead to societal collapse and eventual human extinction in a still rapidly warming world.

Figure caption: The illustrative development pathways (red to green) and associated outcomes (right panel) show that there is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. Climate resilient development is the process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation measures to support sustainable development. Diverging pathways illustrate that interacting choices and actions made by diverse government, private sector and civil society actors can advance climate resilient development, shift pathways towards sustainability, and enable lower emissions and adaptation. Diverse knowledge and values include cultural values, Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge. Climatic and non-climatic events, such as droughts, floods or pandemics, pose more severe shocks to pathways with lower climate resilient development (red to yellow) than to pathways with higher climate resilient development (green). There are limits to adaptation and adaptive capacity for some human and natural systems at global warming of 1.5°C, and with every increment of warming, losses and damages will increase. The development pathways taken by countries at all stages of economic development impact GHG emissions and mitigation challenges and opportunities, which vary across countries and regions. Pathways and opportunities for action are shaped by previous actions (or inactions and opportunities missed; dashed pathway) and enabling and constraining conditions (left panel), and take place in the context of climate risks, adaptation limits and development gaps. The longer emissions reductions are delayed, the fewer effective adaptation options.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

For IPCC views, read Tech Sum not Policy Sum

IPCC Reports are highly political processes. The Summary for Policy Makers reflects govt. views. The scientists write the Technical Summary.

Getty image / From the article

by Amy Westervelt – 12/04/2022 in Drilled

The Technical Summary kinda slaps (IPCC Mitigation Report, Part 2): Forget the Summary for Policymakers, the Technical Summary Is Where It’s At

If I could give other journalists covering this report just one piece of advice, it would be this. The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) goes through a tedious approval process during which representatives from 195 governments (some of them very dependent on our continued dependence on fossil fuels, cough cough the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, I’m looking at you). The Technical Summary, on the other hand, comes straight from the authors and is generally released at the same time as the SPM. As Max Boykoff, a contributing author to Ch 13 (on policy) put it: “The technical summary is the one that’s prepared by authors of the report. So it does go through a review process by governments and experts, but ultimately the authors have a say there.” Whereas with the SPM, while authors can reject input that would make the summary inaccurate, that seems to be the most they can do to maintain the integrity of that document; preventing it from becoming a mealy-mouthed political document on the other hand, not so much.

Read the complete article….

Featured image: IPCC’s review process for formal reports. / Original source: IPCC’s Preparing Reports. Via Hall (02/2022) Some fundamental issues relating to the science underlying climate policy: The IPCC and COP26 couldn’t help but get it wrong.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

IPCC: Summary of importance of 3 part AR6 Report

Following up on my comprehensive post, The Guardian succinctly explains why the 3 parts of the complete AR6 need to be considered by everyone.

The latest report said that temperatures could rise by as much as 3C, a catastrophic level. Photograph: Mario Hoppmann/AFP/Getty Images / From the article

by Fiona Harvey, 05/04/2022 in the Guardian

Why are the three IPCC working group reports significant? Explainer: The IPCC has now published all parts of its landmark review of climate science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, has now published all three sections of its landmark comprehensive review of climate science.

Yet the picture could already be even worse than the IPCC has presented. The IPCC data took in research papers published from 2014 up to last year, but since then the world has experienced even more extreme weather. The IPCC reports are regarded as cautious and conservative by many scientists, and the summary for policymakers that sets out the key messages of each working group are subject to inputs from governments that some regard as watering down.

Read the complete article….

Featured Image: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) – complete. From the IPCC Web site.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.