David Hone

Following on from my previous post, I spoke at the opening lunch of Singapore Energy Week on the same subject  – a trillion tonne carbon budget. The core of the story went something like this.

The starting point is a trillion tonne “glass”, now just over half full with industrial revolution carbon (data from IEA and CDIAC), coming both from fossil fuels and deforestation (in reality it is probably worse than this as my simple analysis did not include the other greenhouse gases). The world is filling the “glass” at an increasingly rapid rate and it is now over half full.

If the world continues to fill the “glass” through to 2100, with emissions growing at 1% per annum (as an example – but energy related CO2 emissions have increased at 2% p.a. over the last 40 years – but have dropped by some 3% in the last 12-18 months) then we end up with some two trillion tonnes of carbon emitted since 1750, well above the trillion tonne level that equates to a 50% chance of hitting 2 degrees C – in other words, “two glasses completely full” and a world quite a bit warmer than 2 degrees C.

In reality, the current global hydrocarbon reserve picture does not fully support such a simple proposition. Using the oil, oil-sands, gas and coal reserves data in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2009 and assuming that all those reserves are consumed, together with assumptions on the growth in cement manufacture  and continued land use change, the carbon situation looks more like this – two “glasses”, each not quite full.

I then turned attention to solutions with a focus on the largest overall contributor, coal. Today there is some 1000 GW of coal fired power generation, producing about 8 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. According to the International Energy Agency, emissions are growing at 6% p.a.  The chart below shows growth is accelerating rapidly in China, but also in the rest of the world outside North America.

If we assume that emissions from coal fired power stations double by 2050, then plateau for the remainder of the century, then this alone fills the trillion tonne “glass” from where the world is today. Coal reserves can more than support such a move although it will be a challenging level of production.

One approach is to look to carbon capture and storage  (CCS) for a solution.  CCS represents a safe and sustainable approach for dealing with CO2 emissions and is based on a family of technologies all in use today. Although large scale end-to-end demonstration needs to happen urgently, deployment need not be some distant dream.  As a thought experiment, what if we started building all new coal fired power stations with CCS and either retrofitted with CCS or replaced all existing coal fired power stations by 2050. The global carbon story through to 2100 would change radically and look something like this – a “glass and a bit”, so still not there, but a huge improvement.

This is a pretty heroic assumption, but nevertheless points toward a solution, or at least part of it. In reality we have to do much more, but the focus need only be in five areas. They are;

1.  More efficient use of the energy sources that are available;
2.  Increased use of renewable and nuclear sources for the provision of energy;
3.  Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage in tandem with the use of fossil fuel sources for the provision of energy [or with the chemical conversion of fossil derived materials for the provision of various manufactured products];
4.  Containment, destruction and reduced usage of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide;
5.  Reducing emissions through land use, land use change and forestry, including reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.

I concluded with some discussion on the policy measures necessary to do all this, which I have discussed in many previous postings.

This week I managed to stay a bit closer to home and met up for lunch with Dr. Myles Allen of the Department of Physics (Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics) at the University of Oxford.

Although we have probably all understood the bit about the “area under the curve” when it comes to CO2 emissions, Myles and his team have brought a whole new dimension to the issue with a recent article in Nature. The core of the arguement is that simply emitting carbon dioxide slower will not address the  issue of climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether, before we reach an upper limit of one trillion tonnes of carbon.

According to Myles the risk of exceeding the EU stated target of 2 degrees Celcius is primarily determined by the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions over time, not by short-term emission rates. He has shown that total cumulative emissions of one trillion tonnes of carbon (1 Tt C, or 3,670 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide) over the entire ‘anthropocene’ period 1750-2500 causes a most likely peak warming of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Of this budget, emissions to 2009 have already consumed approximately half (0.5 Tt C).

You can track the “progress” (hardly seems the right word for this) of global carbon emissions on his website. As of today 532 billion tonnes of the trillion tonne budget have been consumed. Extrapolating emission rates forward leads to the forecast that the trillionth tonne will be emitted sometime in the late first quarter of 2045 (although the website shows this moving forward all the time). All this means we have 468 billion tonnes left – which might sound alot, but carve that up amongst 200 countries with populations ranging form 1.4 billion down to a few thousand and it presents quite a problem.

The EU and the USA are already in the process of carving their bit out. Have a look in Waxman-Markey and add up the number of allowances to be issued into the US economy between 2012 and 2100 (from 2050 onwards one billion tonnes of CO2 per annum are allowed) and it comes to 50 billion tonnes of carbon (which doesn’t even account for the whole economy, but most of it). This represents nearly 11% of the total remaining carbon emissions for some 5% of the global population.

Whilst this is a huge reduction from current US emissions (which, according to the IEA, account for some 20% of global energy related CO2 emissions), it of course raises the difficult question of equity. Add to this the fact that US and EU economies will be able to emit more as they purchase offsets from other countries. This in turn raises the issue as to the nature of offsets. In order to keep this system whole all offsets should really only be sequestration based – i.e. a tonne stored away for every tonne emitted. That means forestry and carbon capture and storage and that’s all, although GHG destruction should probably also qualify. By 2050 of course we may also be talking about a tonne removed from the atmosphere, but that will still have to be sequestered somewhere as well. There is a certain irony here in that neither forestry nor CCS qualify as offsets under the EU-ETS today – in the case of forestry it is because the EU doesn’t want to allow it and in the case of CCS because the international community won’t allow it to qualify under the CDM.

Another aspect to all of this is that very long tails of low emissions can’t be allowed. Waxman-Markey does an excellent job of driving down US emissions to very low levels by 2050, but then has a billion tonnes of CO2 remaining indefinately, i.e. a very long tail. Over time that continues to accumulate which just adds to the problem. As I have noted in a previous posting, the last 20% is indeed problematic, but under a trillion tonne scenario it cannot be. As it will be extraordinarily difficult for an economy to get to zero emissions, the solution will doubtless be net zero emissions, which could mean sequestering a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere for every tonne emitted, either by direct removal or by gasification of biomass to produce electricity with the resultant CO2 being stored.

This will indeed be a brave new world.

I had never intended this blog to be about climate science, but every now and again something comes along which changes that. Recently that something was a book by an Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth – global warming the missing science. The book sets out to deconstruct every single aspect of climate change science (even to the point of arguing that CO2 levels may not actually be rising). The book cites over 2000 scientific papers. It was sent to me by a colleague who I have known for many years – other colleagues also received copies from the  same person. Added to this was the fact that the author comes from Adelaide University, where I studied chemical engineering.  So I feel compelled to reply.

There is no doubt that this is a very heavily researched book, quoting over 2000 sources and scientific papers. The papers quoted, as far as I can tell based on the ones that I recognise, represent the peer reviewed findings of scientists from around the world, but I think Plimer has been somewhat disingenuous  in the way he has picked pieces from a variety of papers on a subject, quoted them all en masse, but then not actually represented the full findings of those papers in the text that he writes on a given subject. I can only come to this conclusion based on papers I actually know and that sample represents a small fraction of the totality of papers cited, but I am concerned that this approach may be common throughout the book.

This is best illustrated with an example. On pages 405 to 410 Plimer discusses hurricanes and as is typical throughout every other part of the book seeks to deconstruct so called popular thinking about this issue in relation to climate change. He claims that tropical hurricanes and cyclones are not increasing in number, that there is no change in strength linked with temperature rise and that any variation we may have seen in hurricanes is due to a multi-decadal oscillation that exists as a background to hurricane activity. He twice quotes (and I am sure correctly) papers published in Natureby Dr Kerry Emmanuel, a well known researcher into this subject. I had the privilege of listening to a presentation by Dr Emmanuel on this paper and what was said in person bears little resemblance to the conclusions Plimer comes to, even though the paper is mentioned. Rather, Dr Emmanuel presented statistical evidence that hurricane strength is increasing as the oceans warm and that this is unrelated to any background oscillation. They did concur on the point that the number of hurricanes appears to remain the same globally, although Plimer puts “increasing numbers of hurricanes” forward as an issue that needs debunking, rather than an issue on which there are either no findings or possibly just a media finding.

It also appears to me that there is a faulty logic running throughout the book. It runs something along the lines of “I grow yellow flowers in my garden, this is a yellow flower, therefore it must have come from my garden”, or perhaps an alternative along the lines of, “When I last looked in my garden there were red flowers, this flower is yellow, therefore it couldn’t have come from my garden.” Over and over the reader is reminded that because certain sets of conditions have existed in the (long distant) past that we can’t be in the situation today where rising levels of CO2 can be linked with any change in temperature. For me this isn’t a valid argument. I can well imagine any number of steady states existing at quite different combinations of CO2 level and temperature, driven by the position of the continents, the type of biosphere at the time, orbital variation, solar activity and so on.

Other arguments seem just plain wrong. For example, he makes a constant mockery of Al Gore and his matching saw tooth graphs of CO2 and temperature. With hindsight, I suspect even Al Gore would probably agree that this wasn’t the best example to use, in that at least part of the phenomena he was highlighting is most likely CO2 degassing of the oceans as temperature rises (e.g. as a result of orbital variation) rather than rising CO2 driving temperature. There is a multi-century time lag involved for rising temperatures to lead to significant ocean degassing, simply because of the size of the oceans and the rate at which they take up heat. But Plimer then goes on to link (as a possibility) the current rising CO2 level (which in other parts of the book he even refutes is happening) to the Medieval Warm Period. Surely CO2 degassing will only take place after many hundreds of years of constant warming, i.e. a constant higher heat flux into the ocean, not as a delayed response to a temporary warming blip some 700 years ago, following by a cold period as well. This seems like pretty basic heat transfer thinking to me.

Perhaps the weakest part of the book is the discussion around CO2 absorption in the infra-red, which of course is critical to the whole issue. Having cited endless papers on everything else, he finally gets to this key point and cites almost nothing at all. He claims that the greenhouse gases that already exist in the atmosphere absorb most of the infra-red which means there is nothing more to absorb so there need be no fear of rising levels of greenhouse gases. I have spoken to colleagues who study the science very carefully and external climate scientists and this issue has long been put to rest. The reality is the opposite, i.e. that rising levels of trace gases are contributing to increased infra-red absorption. More importantly, the trace gases are driving (forcing mechanism) the change as they accumulate in the atmosphere, whereas water vapour, which Plimer talks about as the only greenhouse gas that really matters, is responding as a feedback mechanism with rising temperature. Water can only ever act in this way as it cannot accumulate in the atmosphere. If there is too much it rains. It is even possible to see all this from satellite data, which shows the difference in absorption spectra as seen from above our atmosphere over the period 1970 to 1997 (although presumably Plimer wouldn’t like this study as quite a bit of data processing has been done – seems to be a pet hate of his).

 One other issue that particularly bothered me is his criticism of the measurement of CO2 and his claim that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been much higher even in recent times. He notes that 19th Century CO2 measurements show periods at over 400 ppm, so why worry now about 390 ppm and rising. The reality is that since the late 1950s a very accurate system of global monitoring of CO2 levels has been put in place. These CO2 measurements are done in remote locations based on the techniques developed by Charles David Keeling. The measurements represent the background CO2 level of the atmosphere, not some local spot number. Local spot data can vary significantly for all sorts of reasons and is the most likely contributor to significant variations in atmospheric CO2 levels reported over the last 150 years. Plimer doesn’t even discuss this. More recently, ice core data has shown that the long term background level is very stable during inter glacial periods.

It is also important to mention another Plimer perspective – this is where he seems to get angry. He relentlessly attacks the IPCC as if it were a monolithic block of scientific thinking that is intolerant of any findings that deviate from “climate doctrine”. That is far from any reality I have seen. Whilst nobody would claim IPCC is perfect or free from political interference, it is a body that seeks to pull together peer reviewed literature, not generate such material itself. For example, IPCC have no computer climate models, although Plimer constantly refers to the “IPCC models” and their “doubtful findings”. Rather the models exist in the various research institutions that IPCC draws on. On the subject of political interference, demonisation of sceptics and witch hunts (of climate sceptics) I suspect that some scientists would claim the opposite, i.e. that their disturbing findings on what we are doing to our atmosphere and the impact that will have, were undermined by some governments in recent years. I have heard first hand such sentiments expressed from the podium in scientific gatherings.

Over a period of about ten years now Shell has supported the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The researchers there also contribute to the IPCC process and they have an increasingly sophisticated climate model. In the time that I have been attending the meetings there has been a steady progression of new findings and advances in many fields, including aspects such as clouds, aerosols, volcanoes and the like, all of which contribute to the overall thinking on the climate issue. The MIT forums do not seek to promote climate scientists nor to demonise those that have alternative view points, rather they serve to discuss findings and promote thinking and understanding of the issues we face. I am at a loss to understand why Ian Plimer has set out to invalidate everything that such people have contributed and why he thinks that his view of this issue is the correct one, let alone that all others are simply wrong.

Finally, let us not forget the political reality of all this. Governments in all parts of the world are acting on the issue of climate change. For this and many other reasons, some good and some not so good, they want to see a shift in the make-up of the energy system and the way in which we use energy. It is hard to see that the energy status quo will persist, even despite the Ian Plimers of this world.

As for a book I would recommend, try The Long Thaw, by David Archer. It is based on many of the same papers that Plimer cites, but perhaps not surprisingly the conclusion is very different.

I was speaking on a panel in Oxford last week and the subject of greenhouse gases other than CO2 came up with one of my fellow panelists. It seems we can add a “new” one to the list of recognised greenhouse gases, Nitrogen Trifluoride. NF3 has a global warming potential (GWP) some 17,000 times that of CO2 with an estimated atmospheric lifetime of about 700 years. Like many of these high GWP compounds, NF3 finds a home in the electronics industry. It is not a listed Kyoto gas.

Global production of NF3 has grown from some 100 tonnes in 1992 to an estimated 4000 tonnes in 2007 and is projected to reach 8000 tonnes a year by 2010. The electronics industry tells us that only a very small (~2%) of global production is released into the atmosphere and that most industrial processes result in its destruction. However, not all observers agree on such levels (claims of up to 16% released).

Neverthless, the issue here is not NF3 itself, but the much more important need to keep a check on all the greenhouse gases. This point was really driven home for me when the Shell scenario team submitted the two Shell Scenarios, Scramble and Blueprints, to analysis by the MIT Integrated Global System Model of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

Just a quick scenario synopsis first:

• Scramble sees the world taking a more reactive approach, first focussing on increasing the energy supply and then facing the consequences later.
• In Blueprints, the difficult decisions are taken sooner rather than later, leading to revolutionary changes and a better balance of economic and environmental needs.

The analysis is described very thoroughly in the MIT paper The Influence on Climate Change of Differing Scenarios for Future Development Analyzed Using the MIT Integrated Global System Model. In Blueprints the emission of non-CO2 gases is kept in check at about current levels whereas by 2100 the same gases under Scramble are some two and a half times current levels and still rising, even though Scramble has finally managed to see CO2 emissions plateau by the second half of this century.

The impact on atmospheric concentration of GHGs is even more marked. By 2100 Blueprints sees CO2 levels in the atmosphere plateau at about 550 ppm and total GHGs plateau at 630 ppm CO2e. In Scramble, CO2 is nearing 700 ppm and still rising, but total GHGs are now over 1000 ppm CO2e and rising. The latter translates into a near quadrupling over the 21st century of the net radiative forcing due to all long-lived GHGs, sulfate and black carbon, aerosols, and ozone which translates again to an increase, by 2100, in the Global Mean Temperature in degrees Centigrade (relative to 2000) of some 4.5 deg.C.

Whilst even the concerted mitigation efforts of Blueprints may be insufficient overall, the stark message of the analysis is “watch out for the other gases”. As we head towards Copenhagen, all eyes will be on the energy sector and CO2 emissions. NF3 and its cohorts may well miss the party, but to our long term detriment.

James Lovelock's latest book

Yesterday I travelled into rural Devon to meet with James Lovelock, the renowned author and scientist. James is the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, which proposes that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis.

James has written much about climate change and his latest book, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia“, puts forward a very different agenda for the world than that being discussed globally today. Whilst he recognises the importance of efforts to reduce emissions, his view is that the earth is about ready to jump to a new much hotter homeostatis with a transition that will be rapid and extraordinarily damaging to us.

I  must confess that whilst I had heard and read much about James in the press, I had never taken the time to read one of his books. I did so with “Vanishing” before visiting Devon and found it to be a fascinating insight into the possible reaction of the earth to our CO2 onslaught, although it does tend to leave the reader feeling a bit helpless and hopeless.

Whilst many may disagree with the views of Lovelock, they are not to be simply dismissed either. This is a man with an immense science background dotted with very significant contributions to fields such as atmospheric chemistry. But best you hear it from James himself in the short interview below. Finally, my sincere thanks to James and his wife Sandy for meeting with me and James Smith, Chairman of Shell UK.

As you will have read over the past three weeks, I have had the huge privilege of visiting the continent of Antarctica.

First of all, two acknowledgements, to Robert Swan at 2041 for asking me to come on his expedition and talk about climate change and to Shell for supporting me.

David and Robert Swan on the Antarctic Peninsula

Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is not a place to really see the effects of climate change, at least not yet. There is strong anecdotal evidence of changes on the Antarctic Peninsula and there have been some spectacular break ups of big ice shelves over the last few years, but despite recent findings published earlier this year in Nature, the science is not yet clear on the fate of this continent and its vast ice coverage as the world warms – but it is hard to rationalise that nothing will happen there.

Visiting Antarctica is quite an overwhelming experience. Standing on the rugged shore (no docks here) in a remote bay watching penguins go about their business and whales feed in the icy water, it makes you think about what the world was once like, before humans shaped it for our own use. We have “geo-engineered” the planet and its atmosphere in just 1000 years, with the bulk of it happening in the last 100 years.

There is little true land-based wilderness left, just pockets here and there, but even they are usually inhabited or used by man.

Mankind has also changed the composition of the atmosphere. First it was local air pollution, then regional impacts and now it is global. We have already seen that global change in the atmosphere does have an impact. The ozone layer thinned following a build-up of Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons (CFCs), perhaps the most telling aspect of our presence on this planet for a long-term visitor to the Antarctic. But we have also demonstrated that these local, regional and even global issues can be addressed and that a balance can eventually be restored.

Now humans are altering the quantity of greenhouse gas components in the atmosphere with scant collective thought about what it really means for the future. The issue is highlighted again in the Guardian today with an article about Nicholas Stern . Lord Stern has shown us very clearly that there is an economic rationale for addressing the build-up of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, yet as the article discusses we persist in an endless debate on the issue itself.

As a person with a science and engineering background, the issue is very simple and it astonishes me that the simple physics behind what is happening in the atmosphere is so disputed. The facts are clear:

• Humans are raising the level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere through the huge level of global industrial activity.

• We all know and have known for over 100 years that GHGs, in particular CO2, are key regulators of our long-term global environment.

Given this, we shouldn’t be surprised to expect a change if we double or triple the level of these gases in the atmosphere or (like CFCs) we introduce them in significant quantities for the very first time.

Despite the fact that we have enormous regard for science and take it for granted in devices we use every day (such as the computer you are reading this blog on), we seem bent on not believing our atmospheric chemists and others like them who have worked just as hard at establishing their base of knowledge as those who led the way for transistors, semi-conductors and now nanotechnology. It’s a bit like being given some very bad health news by a world leading oncologist then visiting 99 other doctors with various qualifications until one tells us that we will probably be OK and then deciding that this is the one that must be right – and it turns out his specialty isn’t oncology and he might not be a doctor at all – but we believe him anyway.

We can even measure the change in infrared absorption over the last 30 years yet still we argue the point.

Changes in outgoing long-wave radiation 1970-1997 (satellite)

Nicholas Stern has also outlined the key elements of a global deal. It’s not complicated, but it will require an unprecedented level of global cooperation to agree and implement. But as I saw on my Antarctic expedition, attended by people from over 20 countries, that level of cooperation is possible.

So now I am back in the real world of politics and self-interest (and e-mail) and today the first round of international talks (for 2009) in the lead-up to Copenhagen starts in Bonn.

There is much to do !

It´s late and I am in Madrid airport waiting for a flight to Buenos Aires. From there I fly down to Ushuaia, the southern most city in the world. Then on Monday evening I board the MV Akademik Ioffe to cross Drakes passage for Antarctica.

I have joined the Inspire Antarctic Expedition 2009, run by polar explorer Robert Swan and his organisation “2041″. Robert has dedicated his life to the preservation of the Antarctic and the organisation has been established to raise awareness with young people of the importance of the Antarctic, with a view to ensuring the continuation of the Environmental Protocol of the Antarctic Treaty when it is reviewed in 2041.

Through a somewhat tenuous connection via the Cambridge Programme for Industry (a guy from BP who heard me speak at one of the CPI events), Robert approached me last year to be the climate change speaker on the 2009 expedition. This presented a tremendous opportunity and with support from Shell, here I am. I am going to try and use this blog, via my colleagues in the Shell media office, to keep a journal of the trip. I have never really done anything like this before, so I only hope I can keep it interesting. At least the pictures should be good, but you may not see them until I am back – it all depends on the satellite bandwidth.

I will be using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with one of EF 24-105, 100-400 or 16-35 mm lenses. I also have a small Lumix G1 with me as well.

The people on IAE 2009 are from all parts of the world, some with corporate groups, some sponsored, some just doing it for themselves.

As for the speaking bit, I have been asked to give four talks, each of about an hour. I decided to cover the science, the energy challenge, policies and technologies and finally adaptation.

The slides for the first three talks are available on Slideshare, so feel free to browse.