About the only thing science/maths can predict with any degree of accuracy is the movement of the bodies in space.
Or:
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences already prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is so.
Which?
But more to the point, why preach only to the choir here at RC? Why do you think Stefan would be a better spokesperson than you yourself? And if you think he would be better, then perhaps you should trust his judgment concerning the fora in which he communicates, and the messages he chooses?
Dude, go forth and preach to the heathen.
I don’t suggest that sarcastically or ironically. (Well, other than the tone and metaphor.) I’ve written many, many thousands of words, over the last eight years or so, trying to communicate the situation as best as I can understand and articulate it. I know I’m not the only one here who can say that, or something similar, and I know others here who may not write much nevertheless communicate in other ways (such as lectures, presentations, and all manner of conversations.) RC is a valuable resource to us. Let it do what it is meant to do.
Oh, and one last clarification about my previous comment: you seem to conflate topics. The bulk of the comment was about how I thought catastrophe might play out, IF it plays out. The last comment, which you quoted, was about *when* it might play out.
And that’s right out of AR5–technically, RCP 2.6 is still possible, though unlikely. But if we realize RCP 8.5, that’s a very different result in 2100 than if we ‘only’ realize RCP 4.5. (A mean delta of 3.7 C for the last two decades of the century, as opposed to 1.8.) Of course, absent a drawdown of CO2, warming would not just stop at 2100.
Turning again to the shorter term, AR5 doesn’t give much likelihood of hitting 2 C by 2050 under any RCP. And extrapolation of current trends gives about .6 C in that time, for a cumulative total of 1.3-1.4. I think that’s too conservative, since TOA radiative imbalance is considerably higher than throughout most of the historical record, and since we seem to be getting some feedbacks happening (I’m thinking of ice/snow albedo and water vapor.) Probably most here find that too conservative.
Chuck, let me come back to your question and clarify my previous two comments, by adding just a little more context. (And I’ll be more brief.)
I don’t think that a generalized collapse is inevitable. I think that we will get some sort of climate deal, which will result in some level of emissions mitigation. I think that the decarbonization of electrical generation, visibly underway around the world, will continue, and accelerate, though I doubt we will see a robust trend of falling emissions before 2020 at best. I think that we’ll see quite a lot of adaptation measures, which will be of varying utility–but some will be quite helpful, especially in the relative short term, but perhaps also longer term, and particularly so if we get really meaningful mitigation.
We’re going to take damage, no doubt. Heck, I think we’ve already suffered more than 100,000 premature deaths and $100 billion in economic damages, though that’s just my own informal estimate. (I suspect it’s way too conservative, because I suspect that there are a lot of small-scale impacts that have never been documented, let alone reported or attributed–a few tens of thousands of dollars here, a couple of lives there.)
We’re going to lose places, species, cultures and lives. we’re going to lose Arctic sea ice, at least seasonally. We’re transforming the planet, and untold ecologies around it. But if we’re smart and lucky, that may be ‘all.’
where he makes some thoughtful points about how difficult it is to explain science and probability of low or high risk events, with reference to the RC AMOC thread.
More links and thoughtful comments in that discussion thread generally, worth a look.
Just another data point on how much education remains to be done, this example from Express.co.uk:
NASA on alert as HUGE Asteroid 2014-YB35 set to ‘skim past Earth’ at 23,000 mph on FRIDAY
• How rare is it?
• An asteroid this size will not pass by Earth again for 5,000 years
And thus, any worries their credulous reader may have about an asteroid impact are dismissed for millenia, by some headline writer who never understood statistics and risk.
Thomas O'Reillysays
I really do consider shunting reasonable comments off to the bore hole (in response to other’s comments/questions/confusions) that are not personally abusive nor extreme in any way) incredibly immature and childish.
It’s a disservice to all scientists. It is anathema to the principles of Philosophy. It’s ridiculous.
[Response: You are off topic and repeating points you have already made. Please don’t do that. – gavin]
Lawrence Colemansays
244:kevin, Thank you for pointing out the land/sea temp breakdown. Inland Queensland is suffering it’s hottest ever start to the year. Some inland towns such as Longreach experiencing 3+ consecutive weeks of over 40C and highest night-time mins.
As you would realise during the late Triassic through Jurassic periods the CO2 atmospheric concentration was around 500ppm with a corresponding ice free state on either pole. Sure life flourished especially the mega-fauna but they had a long time to acclimatise and adapt, even evolve to the ever so gradually increasing temperatures. As for us, it’s only been since the industrial revolution-300 odd years, a mere blink of the eye (or rather..shockwave) in the timescale of the planet’s history. Take the ongoing Ebola epidemic, could it be that an catastrophic decline in invertebrate numbers failed to keep the virus in check causing it to break out of nature’s time honoured containment lines. With each human to human transmission causing millions of mutations the risk of ebola becoming airborne increases..tick..tick..tick. Then there is malaria, dengue fever etc. I believe and this is what I can visualise is that that current climate shock can and will cause another major world extinction event.
Yes, to be clear, I think (and I’m getting a tad uncomfortable opining, as I am essentially just another guy on a blog) I think *human* extinction is not likely any time soon. (Though we can, from the best information we have, create a ‘six-degree’ world–the paleo analogues of which are, to say the least, not encouraging. So I think humanity will make it to 2100, but I’m less sure that the same will be true of 2300.)
On the other hand, as I said in #252, “we are going to lose… species.” We probably already have, though to my knowledge the only extinction actually attributed to climate change so far was the golden toad of costa rica, and that attribution is disputed. This story puts the golden toad among a “very small number of species whose recent extinction has been attributed with medium confidence to climate change, according to Scholes and Pörtner.” Unable to find a list of the others, except on a denialist blog which attempts to debunk three extinctions (with, however, manifestly insufficient data analysis.)
However, there is a very strong consensus that extinction risks are high, and it’s certainly logical. Moreover, there’s strong observational evidence of adaptations (mostly in the form of range shifts) to the relatively modest warming we have experienced so far. (Temporal shifts, too–for instance, Amy Seidl reported research by Stan Boutin showing that boreal squirrels are bearing litters two weeks earlier than in the past, and that the difference appears to be partly genetically-based–ie., due to evolutionary selection. Remember, squirrel generations are only a year apart.)
It’s been pointed out that the abilities of species to adapt are highly differential–most animals, for instance, can shift ranges faster than trees can. So ecologies are shifted–actually, torn apart–as relative abundances of species are drastically altered. (Those boreal squirrels may be ‘climate winners’ right now, for instance, and presumably their predator species will be, too, but what will increased demand on their food supply do?) It’s a shuffling of ecological decks that will be happening globally, and the consequences of which we are pretty much completely unable to predict in detail.
And a lot of habitats will just disappear. They’ll be transformed into something utterly different from a biological perspective. Around the world there are numerous habitats that are biological ‘islands’–mountains, mesas, tablelands, reefs, et cetera. Many are home to endemic species. And as temperature and precipitation change, in many cases conditions will no longer be suitable for them.
For example, take southeastern brook trout. The southeast actually still isn’t warming, if you consider the instrumental record. (That’s because it happened that the early years of that record were extremely warm relatively to much of the period since. The Southeast has warmed if you only consider the period during which a global anthropogenic trend is detectible.) Anyway, those brookies inhabit the upper reaches of mountain streams. Sustained warming will take those ‘upper reaches’ higher and higher, and of course at some point you run out of stream.
Anglers will be sad, and so will the folks in the economy that depends upon them–there will be other fish that move in, but you’ll be able to fish them much closer to home, if you so desire. Don’t know about the truly ecological repercussions, but they will be real.
But that sort of thing will be going on everywhere, all the time.
Conversely, there will be new (potential) habitats coming into being–combinations of geography and climate that never existed before. In a sense, it is creative. But the good stuff will take an awfully long time to emerge. On normal human time scales, those benefits don’t really exist.
#246 Hank Roberts posted link to, It is about our respective willingness to understand and buffer against risks
I’ve been trying to help reframe the conversation in terms of risk for a really long time. She is absolutely correct. From a risk perspective, a temp limit makes no sense: We’ve never seen the Earth System pushed like, or responding like, this. This time is different.
What we do know is for 3 million years <300 ppm was at least relatively predictable. The one time it goes up, up, up all heck breaks lose.
Do we really need to know anything else? No, we don't. CO2 level is the appropriate targeting, and 300 is the target.
Yeah, I said the Sea Ice changes told us so. How many years ago did I say 350 and 2C were ridiculous on the face of it?
#230 Thomas O'Reilly said, “Logically, I therefore believe that, “What humanity needs to know is” how to reverse AGW/CC Drivers now – and then do it.
We do know. Few get it, fewer are willing.
The extent of Ice loss and Sea levels in 2100 are irrelevant in 2015, when there is far more important critical work needed to be done now.
Disagree. Backcasting is critical.
#232: Wars will do nothing but reduce our ability to become sustainable while there is still time.
BPL: I wasn’t advocating wars. I was advocating defense of a homestead surrounded by conditions of desperate anarchy
Tomato/tomahto.
Keep resisting simplification, you will get your wish.
#237 Edward Greisch said, 228 Killian & 235 wili: BPL is correct.
Psychic! Lovely.
He, like many, preaching the end is nigh, are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy, having given up. He’s not right, he’s just lacking fortitude and insight, and most of all, knowledge. He is consistently dismissive, childish and rude to those who understand better than he. That’s bias confirmation.
Thanks for the review, I assume it was for the benefit of the full readership? Please resist the assumption you need to lecture on the state of the planet, or the possibilities, to me, however.
#241 Barton Paul Levenson said, wili,
This is based on my own study, the one I can’t get published. I found out not only that global warming increases the fraction of Earth’s land surface in severe drought, but that drought feeds back on warming. The physical mechanism appears to be the inhibition of surface heat loss through evapotranspiration. The effect was discovered in a 1984 paper about the Sahel drought; I found that, statistically, it shows up on a global scale. Given my estimates, the world goes to 100% of land in severe drought in 7-19 years, depending on the CO2 growth rate.
Interesting, and frightening. Even ahead of my sour estimates. Can you make this available?
244 Kevin McKinney said, No,Chuck, Ed’s (extremely) pessimistic take is not the consensus.
But we have been the far more accurate. Continuing to give short shrift to the analysts consistently most accurate is… maladaptive.
I think the chances of civilization collapsing in the next 30 years, let alone the next 10, are vanishingly small.
That’s less positive than it sounds, though, because I think the chances of getting into an unrecoverable spin that will render said collapse unavoidable within that same span are much, much higher. IOW, I think the collapse will take much longer to play out that Barton or Ed are envisioning.
Just wanted to point out this is a distinction without a difference. The entire conversation WRT climate and collapse is tipping points. When collapse is finished, or mostly finished is irrelevant. It is understanding whether we can still mitigate that is vital. Once to the point adaptation is the only option, the chances of extinction will be so high… give me a bar stool and a lifetime supply of beer.
Basically, you’re saying it will be catabolic rather than rapid collapse. To that I say: All should contemplate a graph of bifurcations.
No, I think not–not before ‘catastrophe commitment’ is kinda complete.
That is, the proper focus is the next (and particularly the last) ‘off ramp,’ not so much the ultimate destination. Over focus on the latter can distract, and particularly so if its proximity is poorly specified.
More specifically, if we prophecy doom in some unrealistically short period of time, all we do is kill our own credibility.
Poster boy for Dunning-Kruger: He’s not right, he’s just lacking fortitude and insight, and most of all, knowledge. He is consistently dismissive, childish and rude to those who understand better than he.
What the Oslo principles offer is a solution to our infuriating impasse in which governments – especially those from developed nations, responsible for 70% of the world’s emissions between 1890 and 2007 – are in effect saying: “We all agree that something needs to be done, but we cannot agree on who has to do what and how much. In the absence of any such agreement, we have no obligation to do anything.” The Oslo principles bring a battery of legal arguments to dispute and disarm that second claim. In essence, the working group asserts that governments are violating their legal duties if they each act in a way that, collectively, is known to lead to grave harms.
Governments will retort that they cannot know their obligations to reduce emissions in the absence of an international agreement. The working group’s response is that they can know this, already, and with sufficient precision.
What’s the difference between a flood basalt, a volcano, and a Volvo?
Nothing ….
— Peter Ward.
Start around minute 34:00, skipping the dramatics about deep time
and past extinctions, and the rest of this is a straightforward pitch, I think, for scientific understanding. Is it oversimplified? I’d like to know what the scientists think of the public pitch by Peter Ward last year at Uof W. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=40m35s
Jon Kellersays
At the risk of having this thread close before anybody responds —
I calculated the 1998-2015 trend (0.077 K/dec including Jan 2015) and found r=0.294, and when I adjusted for autocorrelation (lag-1 test) I got N’=59.5. When I plugged this into a p calculator I was very surprised to find p=0.0125 which suggests that the GISS trend since 1998 is statistically significant. Can anybody confirm so I know I’m not totally off my rocker?
Killiansays
Kevin McKinney said, #260–“a distinction without a difference.”
No, I think not–not before ‘catastrophe commitment’ is kinda complete.
We appear to be in agreement: It’s the Tipping Points, Stupid.
That is, the proper focus is the next (and particularly the last) ‘off ramp,’
not so much the ultimate destination. Over focus on the latter can distract, and particularly so if its proximity is poorly specified.
This is incorrect, logically. Without some idea of the conditions planning/designing for, one cannot effectively do so. Backcasting, to the degree possible, is vital. Risk assessment in this case, given we face potential existential threat, means planning for the long/fat tail.
More specifically, if we prophecy doom in some unrealistically short period of time, all we do is kill our own credibility.
The planet is capable of 5C rise in 10 years. Nothing is unrealistic. Given these conditions have never existed before, not in 4.5 billion years, the more dangerous assumption is the overly, or even somewhat, conservative one. Changing fast enough to avoid a worst case scenario is hardly stupid when it is entirely possible.
Lawrence Colemansays
257: Kevin, to me it doesn’t really matter if ‘we’ make it to 2100 or beyond. Human’s cannot and must not exist in isolation. Our very humanity is inseparably linked to all the other myriad life-forms (flora & fauna) which share our home on this little blue speck of condensed stardust somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos. (sorry to sound Saganesque (he is a hero of mine)) Other forms of life ‘just act’, ‘just do’, we attempt to complicate everything by thinking first. I’m not Christian by any accounts but a seething homogenous monoculture of just human beings fighting for survival on a shrinking liferaft..earth, would be a pretty good analogy of hell in my opinion. We have to act now not just on our behalf but theirs as well! Therefore forget a 2C or 400..even 350ppm target, as alluded to above; a 1.0C and 300ppm respective target is the one we must collectively strive for. Whether that is by geoengineering, extreme tracking solar/wind turbine rollout/wave/tidal energy. That can be done virtually now- nuclear employing thorium reactors(essential part in the solution in my opinion)by about 2030-35. We’ve got to get the people excited by the new sustainable energy revolution. My son is already, he relishes the idea of being a part of it.
#266–Thanks for considering my comments. I’d agree with most of yours, except for:
The planet is capable of 5C rise in 10 years.
Maybe, if, say, solar output suddenly increases by several percent. For anything like current conditions, we aren’t going to get 5C even by 2050. (Yes, I know the ARs are conservative by organizational culture, but given that the RCP 8.5 projection for 2081-2100 is 2.6-4.8C, with a mean value of 3.7, I’d say there’s lots of buffer for that presumptive conservative bias.)
And putting forth that ‘5C in ten years’ will tend to demotivate, rather than spur, prompt action. (IMO, of course.)
#267–Indeed; humans can’t survive without a minimally functioning ecology of some sort. (And yes, the prospect is a hellish one.) We aren’t going to get 300 or 350 without active sequestration. The March 29 reading from Scripps is 403.18 ppm.
My conclusion would be that the next task is to hold as close as possible to 400 ppm. Measures such as the new US INDC goals will be essential, if not sufficient in themselves. We’ve got to get global emissions trending lower, then actually (as Jasper put it some time ago) ‘bend the Keeling curve down.’
Focus on the final destination is good, but so is focus on the next waypoint.
dougsays
More reasons why it’s extremely unlikely that California will “run out of water” next year, or anytime soon.
#259 Killian says: “We do know. Few get it, fewer are willing.”
And whenever the people “who know” are told WHY few get it, and WHY so few are willing, you all get your noses out of joint, and become unnecessarily defensive. They ask for Science paper references, and when they are given them those refs get shunted into the Bore Hole. At least Hank is wise enough and “willing” to dig one thing out of there and represent it here again. 8^)
Killian: “The entire conversation WRT climate and collapse is tipping points.” Great, I knew that before 2005. So what now Killian, when it’s 2015 already. You are still intent to educate people about “Tipping points” because you think it “might” make a difference anytime soon, or what?
Please see my prior quote about Einstein and the definition of insanity. But that’s ok, because I do understand exactly what is going on and why. (smiling)
Killian: “Do we really need to know anything else? No, we don’t. CO2 level is the appropriate targeting, and 300 is the target.”
Then you agree with me 100% Killian. You also agree with one of my key points that you have so far chosen to refute out of hand.
Killian: “Disagree. Backcasting is critical.”
Please prove that assertion/opinion with solid rational logical arguments and supporting science based evidence. I’m listening and will remain silent in the background. Thanks.
Thomas O'Reillysays
#269 doug says: More reasons why it’s extremely unlikely that California will “run out of water” next year, or anytime soon.
I can’t see anything comforting in that report. What happens “after soon” passes?
Will CA be relying on “ground water” even more into the future. Seems so.
Mines & CSG
The Coal Seam Gas (or Coal Bed Methane) industry, and the mining industry, present the greatest threats to the GAB today. These industries use enormous quantities of this good potable and finite GAB water, and turn it to “waste water” – which then becomes a problem to get rid of, as it pollutes the environment with millions of tonnes of salt, contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. http://www.gabpg.org.au/mines-csg
Many things change rapidly, when things change. Only a heads up as fracking goes gang busters.
Lawrence Colemansays
I have read precious little about the replacement of dangerous and weapon friendly uranium 235 reactors to considerably more efficient and ‘safe’ thorium. Here’s an excerpt from wiki.. “Comparing the amount of thorium needed with coal, Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of CERN, (European Organization for Nuclear Research), estimates that one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.” The US has enough thorium to meet it’s current energy demand for at least the next 1000 years.
Could any contributors please explain WHY thorium has not been considered seriously before as an ideal fuel source of nuclear breeder reactors?.
Lawrence Colemansays
269: Doug. I distinctly read the author say ‘if we are careful’ – we will not run out of water next year or the year after. He also said that the groundwater supply is drying up. I trying to equate the relative weight of what you said “extremely unlikely” with “if we are careful”. How heavily and aggressively is California going to ration it’s precious resource before a new strategy is required?
SecularAnimistsays
Lawrence Coleman wrote: “Could any contributors please explain WHY thorium has not been considered seriously before as an ideal fuel source of nuclear breeder reactors?”
Off topic.
Dougsays
Lawrence, A careful reading of the article would have found this: “Less extreme water management activities should be adequate, less costly and better environmentally, even for much more extreme droughts than today’s. California is not running out of water”.
And this was written before Governor Brown’s order yesterday of a 25% cut in water use, backed by fines for non-compliance. There is a history by the way in the West of cooperation among water agencies. I would also be willing to bet you Lawrence that next year the snow pack will be higher that the 8% it’s at today, resulting in more water for California. Of course the whole situation is a crisis, however I think you’ll be surprised when people cooperate in using a lot less water.
Steve Fishsays
Groundwater pumping in the central valley of California causes surface subsidence of as much as one ft per year and nearly 30 ft total in some regions. This cannot be reversed, so the capacity of the aquifers to recover from future rains is permanently reduced.
Steve
Chuck Hughessays
I personally believe that California will run out of water. NOT completely but it doesn’t have to be complete in order to be effectively destructive and semi-permanent. If you own property and you have NO water, your property is completely worthless…. Period. No water and you’re finished. I think some of you are splitting hairs over this issue. Unless weather patterns change and the high pressure ridge moves it’s effectively over for California. Now they can pipe water in for a while and desalinate ocean water for a time but these are band-aids. We all know the long term projections for the Southwest. We can see Lake Mead and Lake Powell drying up. We know what’s coming. To claim that California will not run out of water flies in the face of all evidence. If I were living in California I would move as soon as possible. This situation is only going to worsen over time. I challenge anyone to show any evidence to the contrary.
Killiansays
#268 Thanks for considering my comments. I’d agree with most of yours, except for:
The planet is capable of 5C rise in 10 years.
Maybe, if, say, solar output suddenly increases by several percent. For anything like current conditions, we aren’t going to get 5C even by 2050.
I didn’t say likely, I said possible. And, withing context, clearly was establishing the massive uncertainty and extreme risk we face.
#246–
Or:
Which?
But more to the point, why preach only to the choir here at RC? Why do you think Stefan would be a better spokesperson than you yourself? And if you think he would be better, then perhaps you should trust his judgment concerning the fora in which he communicates, and the messages he chooses?
Dude, go forth and preach to the heathen.
I don’t suggest that sarcastically or ironically. (Well, other than the tone and metaphor.) I’ve written many, many thousands of words, over the last eight years or so, trying to communicate the situation as best as I can understand and articulate it. I know I’m not the only one here who can say that, or something similar, and I know others here who may not write much nevertheless communicate in other ways (such as lectures, presentations, and all manner of conversations.) RC is a valuable resource to us. Let it do what it is meant to do.
Oh, and one last clarification about my previous comment: you seem to conflate topics. The bulk of the comment was about how I thought catastrophe might play out, IF it plays out. The last comment, which you quoted, was about *when* it might play out.
And that’s right out of AR5–technically, RCP 2.6 is still possible, though unlikely. But if we realize RCP 8.5, that’s a very different result in 2100 than if we ‘only’ realize RCP 4.5. (A mean delta of 3.7 C for the last two decades of the century, as opposed to 1.8.) Of course, absent a drawdown of CO2, warming would not just stop at 2100.
Turning again to the shorter term, AR5 doesn’t give much likelihood of hitting 2 C by 2050 under any RCP. And extrapolation of current trends gives about .6 C in that time, for a cumulative total of 1.3-1.4. I think that’s too conservative, since TOA radiative imbalance is considerably higher than throughout most of the historical record, and since we seem to be getting some feedbacks happening (I’m thinking of ice/snow albedo and water vapor.) Probably most here find that too conservative.
So–maybe 1.3-2 C by 2050?
Chuck, let me come back to your question and clarify my previous two comments, by adding just a little more context. (And I’ll be more brief.)
I don’t think that a generalized collapse is inevitable. I think that we will get some sort of climate deal, which will result in some level of emissions mitigation. I think that the decarbonization of electrical generation, visibly underway around the world, will continue, and accelerate, though I doubt we will see a robust trend of falling emissions before 2020 at best. I think that we’ll see quite a lot of adaptation measures, which will be of varying utility–but some will be quite helpful, especially in the relative short term, but perhaps also longer term, and particularly so if we get really meaningful mitigation.
We’re going to take damage, no doubt. Heck, I think we’ve already suffered more than 100,000 premature deaths and $100 billion in economic damages, though that’s just my own informal estimate. (I suspect it’s way too conservative, because I suspect that there are a lot of small-scale impacts that have never been documented, let alone reported or attributed–a few tens of thousands of dollars here, a couple of lives there.)
We’re going to lose places, species, cultures and lives. we’re going to lose Arctic sea ice, at least seasonally. We’re transforming the planet, and untold ecologies around it. But if we’re smart and lucky, that may be ‘all.’
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2012/01/Scientists-and-journalists.jpg
from
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/17/every-scientist-versus-journalist-debate-ever-in-one-diagram/
with hat tip to SJ (FractalPlanet) at https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/general-climate-discussion-2/comment-page-1/#comment-4058
where he makes some thoughtful points about how difficult it is to explain science and probability of low or high risk events, with reference to the RC AMOC thread.
More links and thoughtful comments in that discussion thread generally, worth a look.
Just another data point on how much education remains to be done, this example from Express.co.uk:
And thus, any worries their credulous reader may have about an asteroid impact are dismissed for millenia, by some headline writer who never understood statistics and risk.
I really do consider shunting reasonable comments off to the bore hole (in response to other’s comments/questions/confusions) that are not personally abusive nor extreme in any way) incredibly immature and childish.
It’s a disservice to all scientists. It is anathema to the principles of Philosophy. It’s ridiculous.
[Response: You are off topic and repeating points you have already made. Please don’t do that. – gavin]
244:kevin, Thank you for pointing out the land/sea temp breakdown. Inland Queensland is suffering it’s hottest ever start to the year. Some inland towns such as Longreach experiencing 3+ consecutive weeks of over 40C and highest night-time mins.
As you would realise during the late Triassic through Jurassic periods the CO2 atmospheric concentration was around 500ppm with a corresponding ice free state on either pole. Sure life flourished especially the mega-fauna but they had a long time to acclimatise and adapt, even evolve to the ever so gradually increasing temperatures. As for us, it’s only been since the industrial revolution-300 odd years, a mere blink of the eye (or rather..shockwave) in the timescale of the planet’s history. Take the ongoing Ebola epidemic, could it be that an catastrophic decline in invertebrate numbers failed to keep the virus in check causing it to break out of nature’s time honoured containment lines. With each human to human transmission causing millions of mutations the risk of ebola becoming airborne increases..tick..tick..tick. Then there is malaria, dengue fever etc. I believe and this is what I can visualise is that that current climate shock can and will cause another major world extinction event.
#256–Most welcome, Lawrence.
Yes, to be clear, I think (and I’m getting a tad uncomfortable opining, as I am essentially just another guy on a blog) I think *human* extinction is not likely any time soon. (Though we can, from the best information we have, create a ‘six-degree’ world–the paleo analogues of which are, to say the least, not encouraging. So I think humanity will make it to 2100, but I’m less sure that the same will be true of 2300.)
On the other hand, as I said in #252, “we are going to lose… species.” We probably already have, though to my knowledge the only extinction actually attributed to climate change so far was the golden toad of costa rica, and that attribution is disputed. This story puts the golden toad among a “very small number of species whose recent extinction has been attributed with medium confidence to climate change, according to Scholes and Pörtner.” Unable to find a list of the others, except on a denialist blog which attempts to debunk three extinctions (with, however, manifestly insufficient data analysis.)
However, there is a very strong consensus that extinction risks are high, and it’s certainly logical. Moreover, there’s strong observational evidence of adaptations (mostly in the form of range shifts) to the relatively modest warming we have experienced so far. (Temporal shifts, too–for instance, Amy Seidl reported research by Stan Boutin showing that boreal squirrels are bearing litters two weeks earlier than in the past, and that the difference appears to be partly genetically-based–ie., due to evolutionary selection. Remember, squirrel generations are only a year apart.)
It’s been pointed out that the abilities of species to adapt are highly differential–most animals, for instance, can shift ranges faster than trees can. So ecologies are shifted–actually, torn apart–as relative abundances of species are drastically altered. (Those boreal squirrels may be ‘climate winners’ right now, for instance, and presumably their predator species will be, too, but what will increased demand on their food supply do?) It’s a shuffling of ecological decks that will be happening globally, and the consequences of which we are pretty much completely unable to predict in detail.
And a lot of habitats will just disappear. They’ll be transformed into something utterly different from a biological perspective. Around the world there are numerous habitats that are biological ‘islands’–mountains, mesas, tablelands, reefs, et cetera. Many are home to endemic species. And as temperature and precipitation change, in many cases conditions will no longer be suitable for them.
For example, take southeastern brook trout. The southeast actually still isn’t warming, if you consider the instrumental record. (That’s because it happened that the early years of that record were extremely warm relatively to much of the period since. The Southeast has warmed if you only consider the period during which a global anthropogenic trend is detectible.) Anyway, those brookies inhabit the upper reaches of mountain streams. Sustained warming will take those ‘upper reaches’ higher and higher, and of course at some point you run out of stream.
Anglers will be sad, and so will the folks in the economy that depends upon them–there will be other fish that move in, but you’ll be able to fish them much closer to home, if you so desire. Don’t know about the truly ecological repercussions, but they will be real.
But that sort of thing will be going on everywhere, all the time.
Conversely, there will be new (potential) habitats coming into being–combinations of geography and climate that never existed before. In a sense, it is creative. But the good stuff will take an awfully long time to emerge. On normal human time scales, those benefits don’t really exist.
I saw this and thought it was quite interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/climate-change-paris-talks-oslo-principles-legal-obligations . Read the documents. Anyone else think it is important?
#246 Hank Roberts posted link to, It is about our respective willingness to understand and buffer against risks
I’ve been trying to help reframe the conversation in terms of risk for a really long time. She is absolutely correct. From a risk perspective, a temp limit makes no sense: We’ve never seen the Earth System pushed like, or responding like, this. This time is different.
What we do know is for 3 million years <300 ppm was at least relatively predictable. The one time it goes up, up, up all heck breaks lose.
Do we really need to know anything else? No, we don't. CO2 level is the appropriate targeting, and 300 is the target.
Yeah, I said the Sea Ice changes told us so. How many years ago did I say 350 and 2C were ridiculous on the face of it?
#230 Thomas O'Reilly said, “Logically, I therefore believe that, “What humanity needs to know is” how to reverse AGW/CC Drivers now – and then do it.
We do know. Few get it, fewer are willing.
The extent of Ice loss and Sea levels in 2100 are irrelevant in 2015, when there is far more important critical work needed to be done now.
Disagree. Backcasting is critical.
#232: Wars will do nothing but reduce our ability to become sustainable while there is still time.
BPL: I wasn’t advocating wars. I was advocating defense of a homestead surrounded by conditions of desperate anarchy
Tomato/tomahto.
Keep resisting simplification, you will get your wish.
#237 Edward Greisch said, 228 Killian & 235 wili: BPL is correct.
Psychic! Lovely.
He, like many, preaching the end is nigh, are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy, having given up. He’s not right, he’s just lacking fortitude and insight, and most of all, knowledge. He is consistently dismissive, childish and rude to those who understand better than he. That’s bias confirmation.
Thanks for the review, I assume it was for the benefit of the full readership? Please resist the assumption you need to lecture on the state of the planet, or the possibilities, to me, however.
#241 Barton Paul Levenson said, wili,
This is based on my own study, the one I can’t get published. I found out not only that global warming increases the fraction of Earth’s land surface in severe drought, but that drought feeds back on warming. The physical mechanism appears to be the inhibition of surface heat loss through evapotranspiration. The effect was discovered in a 1984 paper about the Sahel drought; I found that, statistically, it shows up on a global scale. Given my estimates, the world goes to 100% of land in severe drought in 7-19 years, depending on the CO2 growth rate.
Interesting, and frightening. Even ahead of my sour estimates. Can you make this available?
244 Kevin McKinney said, No,Chuck, Ed’s (extremely) pessimistic take is not the consensus.
But we have been the far more accurate. Continuing to give short shrift to the analysts consistently most accurate is… maladaptive.
I think the chances of civilization collapsing in the next 30 years, let alone the next 10, are vanishingly small.
That’s less positive than it sounds, though, because I think the chances of getting into an unrecoverable spin that will render said collapse unavoidable within that same span are much, much higher. IOW, I think the collapse will take much longer to play out that Barton or Ed are envisioning.
Just wanted to point out this is a distinction without a difference. The entire conversation WRT climate and collapse is tipping points. When collapse is finished, or mostly finished is irrelevant. It is understanding whether we can still mitigate that is vital. Once to the point adaptation is the only option, the chances of extinction will be so high… give me a bar stool and a lifetime supply of beer.
Basically, you’re saying it will be catabolic rather than rapid collapse. To that I say: All should contemplate a graph of bifurcations.
#259–“a distinction without a difference.”
No, I think not–not before ‘catastrophe commitment’ is kinda complete.
That is, the proper focus is the next (and particularly the last) ‘off ramp,’ not so much the ultimate destination. Over focus on the latter can distract, and particularly so if its proximity is poorly specified.
More specifically, if we prophecy doom in some unrealistically short period of time, all we do is kill our own credibility.
Poster boy for Dunning-Kruger: He’s not right, he’s just lacking fortitude and insight, and most of all, knowledge. He is consistently dismissive, childish and rude to those who understand better than he.
BPL: Who wants to bet he doesn’t see it?
246 Hank Roberts,
http://www.climatechangeresponses.com/content/2/1/3
Thank you for the link. “Structured Expert Dialogue” by that name is new to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/climate-change-paris-talks-oslo-principles-legal-obligations
What’s the difference between a flood basalt, a volcano, and a Volvo?
Nothing ….
— Peter Ward.
Start around minute 34:00, skipping the dramatics about deep time
and past extinctions, and the rest of this is a straightforward pitch, I think, for scientific understanding. Is it oversimplified? I’d like to know what the scientists think of the public pitch by Peter Ward last year at Uof W. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4&feature=youtu.be&t=40m35s
At the risk of having this thread close before anybody responds —
I calculated the 1998-2015 trend (0.077 K/dec including Jan 2015) and found r=0.294, and when I adjusted for autocorrelation (lag-1 test) I got N’=59.5. When I plugged this into a p calculator I was very surprised to find p=0.0125 which suggests that the GISS trend since 1998 is statistically significant. Can anybody confirm so I know I’m not totally off my rocker?
Kevin McKinney said, #260–“a distinction without a difference.”
No, I think not–not before ‘catastrophe commitment’ is kinda complete.
We appear to be in agreement: It’s the Tipping Points, Stupid.
That is, the proper focus is the next (and particularly the last) ‘off ramp,’
not so much the ultimate destination. Over focus on the latter can distract, and particularly so if its proximity is poorly specified.
This is incorrect, logically. Without some idea of the conditions planning/designing for, one cannot effectively do so. Backcasting, to the degree possible, is vital. Risk assessment in this case, given we face potential existential threat, means planning for the long/fat tail.
More specifically, if we prophecy doom in some unrealistically short period of time, all we do is kill our own credibility.
The planet is capable of 5C rise in 10 years. Nothing is unrealistic. Given these conditions have never existed before, not in 4.5 billion years, the more dangerous assumption is the overly, or even somewhat, conservative one. Changing fast enough to avoid a worst case scenario is hardly stupid when it is entirely possible.
257: Kevin, to me it doesn’t really matter if ‘we’ make it to 2100 or beyond. Human’s cannot and must not exist in isolation. Our very humanity is inseparably linked to all the other myriad life-forms (flora & fauna) which share our home on this little blue speck of condensed stardust somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos. (sorry to sound Saganesque (he is a hero of mine)) Other forms of life ‘just act’, ‘just do’, we attempt to complicate everything by thinking first. I’m not Christian by any accounts but a seething homogenous monoculture of just human beings fighting for survival on a shrinking liferaft..earth, would be a pretty good analogy of hell in my opinion. We have to act now not just on our behalf but theirs as well! Therefore forget a 2C or 400..even 350ppm target, as alluded to above; a 1.0C and 300ppm respective target is the one we must collectively strive for. Whether that is by geoengineering, extreme tracking solar/wind turbine rollout/wave/tidal energy. That can be done virtually now- nuclear employing thorium reactors(essential part in the solution in my opinion)by about 2030-35. We’ve got to get the people excited by the new sustainable energy revolution. My son is already, he relishes the idea of being a part of it.
#266–Thanks for considering my comments. I’d agree with most of yours, except for:
Maybe, if, say, solar output suddenly increases by several percent. For anything like current conditions, we aren’t going to get 5C even by 2050. (Yes, I know the ARs are conservative by organizational culture, but given that the RCP 8.5 projection for 2081-2100 is 2.6-4.8C, with a mean value of 3.7, I’d say there’s lots of buffer for that presumptive conservative bias.)
And putting forth that ‘5C in ten years’ will tend to demotivate, rather than spur, prompt action. (IMO, of course.)
#267–Indeed; humans can’t survive without a minimally functioning ecology of some sort. (And yes, the prospect is a hellish one.) We aren’t going to get 300 or 350 without active sequestration. The March 29 reading from Scripps is 403.18 ppm.
My conclusion would be that the next task is to hold as close as possible to 400 ppm. Measures such as the new US INDC goals will be essential, if not sufficient in themselves. We’ve got to get global emissions trending lower, then actually (as Jasper put it some time ago) ‘bend the Keeling curve down.’
Focus on the final destination is good, but so is focus on the next waypoint.
More reasons why it’s extremely unlikely that California will “run out of water” next year, or anytime soon.
http://californiawaterblog.com/2015/03/30/the-california-drought-of-2015-a-preview/
#259 Killian says: “We do know. Few get it, fewer are willing.”
And whenever the people “who know” are told WHY few get it, and WHY so few are willing, you all get your noses out of joint, and become unnecessarily defensive. They ask for Science paper references, and when they are given them those refs get shunted into the Bore Hole. At least Hank is wise enough and “willing” to dig one thing out of there and represent it here again. 8^)
Killian: “The entire conversation WRT climate and collapse is tipping points.” Great, I knew that before 2005. So what now Killian, when it’s 2015 already. You are still intent to educate people about “Tipping points” because you think it “might” make a difference anytime soon, or what?
Please see my prior quote about Einstein and the definition of insanity. But that’s ok, because I do understand exactly what is going on and why. (smiling)
Killian: “Do we really need to know anything else? No, we don’t. CO2 level is the appropriate targeting, and 300 is the target.”
Then you agree with me 100% Killian. You also agree with one of my key points that you have so far chosen to refute out of hand.
Killian: “Disagree. Backcasting is critical.”
Please prove that assertion/opinion with solid rational logical arguments and supporting science based evidence. I’m listening and will remain silent in the background. Thanks.
#269 doug says: More reasons why it’s extremely unlikely that California will “run out of water” next year, or anytime soon.
I can’t see anything comforting in that report. What happens “after soon” passes?
Will CA be relying on “ground water” even more into the future. Seems so.
The Mother of All Groundwater Supplies on Earth – the GAB
http://theconversation.com/water-in-water-out-assessing-the-future-of-the-great-artesian-basin-13104
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/environment/great-artesian-basin
Mines & CSG
The Coal Seam Gas (or Coal Bed Methane) industry, and the mining industry, present the greatest threats to the GAB today. These industries use enormous quantities of this good potable and finite GAB water, and turn it to “waste water” – which then becomes a problem to get rid of, as it pollutes the environment with millions of tonnes of salt, contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants. http://www.gabpg.org.au/mines-csg
Many things change rapidly, when things change. Only a heads up as fracking goes gang busters.
I have read precious little about the replacement of dangerous and weapon friendly uranium 235 reactors to considerably more efficient and ‘safe’ thorium. Here’s an excerpt from wiki.. “Comparing the amount of thorium needed with coal, Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of CERN, (European Organization for Nuclear Research), estimates that one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.” The US has enough thorium to meet it’s current energy demand for at least the next 1000 years.
Could any contributors please explain WHY thorium has not been considered seriously before as an ideal fuel source of nuclear breeder reactors?.
269: Doug. I distinctly read the author say ‘if we are careful’ – we will not run out of water next year or the year after. He also said that the groundwater supply is drying up. I trying to equate the relative weight of what you said “extremely unlikely” with “if we are careful”. How heavily and aggressively is California going to ration it’s precious resource before a new strategy is required?
Lawrence Coleman wrote: “Could any contributors please explain WHY thorium has not been considered seriously before as an ideal fuel source of nuclear breeder reactors?”
Off topic.
Lawrence, A careful reading of the article would have found this: “Less extreme water management activities should be adequate, less costly and better environmentally, even for much more extreme droughts than today’s. California is not running out of water”.
And this was written before Governor Brown’s order yesterday of a 25% cut in water use, backed by fines for non-compliance. There is a history by the way in the West of cooperation among water agencies. I would also be willing to bet you Lawrence that next year the snow pack will be higher that the 8% it’s at today, resulting in more water for California. Of course the whole situation is a crisis, however I think you’ll be surprised when people cooperate in using a lot less water.
Groundwater pumping in the central valley of California causes surface subsidence of as much as one ft per year and nearly 30 ft total in some regions. This cannot be reversed, so the capacity of the aquifers to recover from future rains is permanently reduced.
Steve
I personally believe that California will run out of water. NOT completely but it doesn’t have to be complete in order to be effectively destructive and semi-permanent. If you own property and you have NO water, your property is completely worthless…. Period. No water and you’re finished. I think some of you are splitting hairs over this issue. Unless weather patterns change and the high pressure ridge moves it’s effectively over for California. Now they can pipe water in for a while and desalinate ocean water for a time but these are band-aids. We all know the long term projections for the Southwest. We can see Lake Mead and Lake Powell drying up. We know what’s coming. To claim that California will not run out of water flies in the face of all evidence. If I were living in California I would move as soon as possible. This situation is only going to worsen over time. I challenge anyone to show any evidence to the contrary.
#268 Thanks for considering my comments. I’d agree with most of yours, except for:
The planet is capable of 5C rise in 10 years.
Maybe, if, say, solar output suddenly increases by several percent. For anything like current conditions, we aren’t going to get 5C even by 2050.
I didn’t say likely, I said possible. And, withing context, clearly was establishing the massive uncertainty and extreme risk we face.
Let’s not get overly pedantic.