By Steve Hynd
Here's where denialism gets us.
Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius � which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" � is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
...Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.
"Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.
That decisive and urgent action would be, at minimum, a legally binding international treaty on carbon emmissions and a Manhattan Project style effort in the Western world. That effort would be to create smart electrical grids than can accept inputted power from a multitude of smaller sources, not just a few massive power stations; research and development of battery and capacitor power storage technology so that we can store power at minimum demand times to use at peak demand times; and all of that coupled - quite literally - to massive new infrastructure investment in renewable power (wind, solar, wave, hydro) which would replace the existing carbon-emitting power stations as quickly as possible.
All of this is quite possible. Scotland might be regarded as a test-bed for such an effort - it's on course to generate all of its electrical power requirements from renewable sources by 2020, with the smart grid to handle those sources too. The alternatives are to simply cut back on power usage - and no-one wants to ruin their own enjoyment of civilization in order to save it - or to accept that climate change will make our world a far more dangerous place to live.
A 2007 report by the centrist think-tank CNAS noted that above a 2 degrees Celsius warming, things get nasty:
In the case of severe climate change, corresponding to an average increase in global temperature of 2.6�C by 2040, massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario...nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.
It only gets worse from there, with a rise of over 5 degrees being described as a "catastrophic scenario" which "would pose almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggled to adapt". But we've already blown past the point where we can limit global warming to under 2 degrees and will soon reach the second tipping point too.
Enough with the denials and oil-funded junk science. Our future is more or less dystopic, it only remains to determine the extent of the dystopia.
You've made a strong, sobering point.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wish articles about global climate change would do is report what the "this many degrees celsius" is in Farenheit (in parentheses if necessary, but at least report it). The average non-scientifically aware American (which face it, is nearly all of us) sees 2 degrees Celsius and thinks it is either (1) no big deal since it is only 2 degrees, or (2) has no concept at all of what Celsius means v. Farenheit, and promptly ignores it since they have no usable frame of reference. I personally think that the failure to report in Farenheit in addition to Celsius is one of the big reasons why most Americans fall for the denialist crap.
Not my problem!
ReplyDeleteI'll be dead by the time the consequence of carbon pollution play out. It will not affect me one way or another and I could care less about those that come afterward.
For the subsequent people who inherit the Earth it's their fucking fault for choosing not to be born during the peak of civilization and fuck these peoples selfish asses for expecting me to go with out!
For those people who live in areas which may or may not be impacted the most I suggest some good 'ol personal responsibility. They are responsible for choosing to live there.
If they don't like it thay can either get the fuck out or go explore the stars for a new planet to live on.
If I want to burn gas, coal, propane, light off my farts, fly a jet at 20000 feet and pump sequestered CO2 directly into the atmosphere It's might right too! So don't tread on me and tell me otherwise!
I ain't about to give up my right to a compfortable 1st world peak lifestyle experience.
I mean fuck, if the Titanic is gonna go down anyway then I want fucking music!
Look, I got mine and fuck all those who didn't NOT MY PROBLEM!!!
[/snark]
Yes, of course the climate has changed in the past and each change has had specific causes. What is evident now, is the the current period of warming is being caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and that it will continue to get worse if we carry on the way we are. Unfortunately, some people will always deny warning signs, which is why human history is full of the misery of war, famine and collapsed civilizations.
ReplyDeleteA 2.6 degrees Celsius rise is equivalent to a rise of 4.7 degrees Farenheit.
ReplyDeleteFrom all that I have read, a 2 degree C rise would make most of the planet too hot to support agriculture, and it was chosen several years ago, before the full impacts were understood, as a reasonable attainable level. IIRC, 2 degrees C correlates to 450 ppm.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of the problems:
We (planet) are already at or have just passed the carrying capacity based on arable land and fossil fuels. This means disruptions in the weather or in fuel/fertilizer will send significant populations into famine. With last year�s wheat harvest destructions in Australia and Russia, and this year�s disaster, which is still unfolding, in the American Midwest, more people will face food insecurity this year.
Dmitry Orlov characterized excess deaths (mortality above the average rates for a cohort): Unless you work in a morgue, you don�t see it as it happens, but one year you go to a class reunion and you realize many of your classmates are gone.
So, we might not even see the excess deaths until several years after the fact just as we could not see peak oil when it occurred in 2005, but only the effect on the economy/housing market/debt system in 2008.
All this from just one half a degree (F) warming.
There is the problem of cascading effects. When one system breaks, the ones dependent on it may also break. We do not know how many instances of death via starvation this will cause.
At some point, the non-linear effects will kick in. Take sea level rise. When the wet process of glacier disintegration accelerates, then this previously unstipulated cause of sea level rise (because scientists do not know how to quantify it, they do not include it in their calculations) becomes a major factor. Hundreds millions more displaced onto non-arable land.
It just gets worsened and worsened.
So, all the dismal projections are based on linear effects, but the larger non-linear effects are not figured in because we do not know how to do so.
StringonaStick, I agree with your premiss that the equivalent Fahrenheit temp should be shown, possibly in brackets, after the Celsius temp.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably know, to get from a temperature change amount in Celsius to an equivalent temperature change amount in Fahrenheit, multiply the amount of Celsius change by 9/5.
Also as you probably know, to get from a temperature reading (not a temperature change) in Celsius to an equivalent temperature reading (not a temp change) in Fahrenheit, multiply the Celsius temperature reading by 9/5, then add 32 (degrees). The reason is that the range in Celsius from freezing to boiling is from 0� to 100�, but the range in Fahrenheit from freezing to boiling is from 32� to 212�. The 9/5 is to adjust for the range spread and the 32 is to raise the Celsius freezing temp of 0� to the Fahrenheit freezing temp of 32�.
Even the drill people see that we can not drill our way to independence no matter what, the evidence is overwhelming. So they use their slogans and stay clear of serious questions that they can not answer truthfully.
ReplyDelete