Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

New research suggests the Earth's climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an 'apocalyptic side of bad' temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime

News report: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html
Full text: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full

sanpaku linked to those a couple days ago

trying to figure out if it would be just as ignored by people in the united states if the trump catastrophe hadn't happened.

probs

I really don't know what it would take for people to pay attention. I almost wish for three really awful hurricanes this summer just so we can go, "hmmm, maybe they were on to something". With zero casualties of course.

Miami drowns while the Trump Administration can't figure out how to answer the phone.

> I really don't know what it would take for people to pay attention

Jobs, national defense and crime are visceral issues.
They have deep analogs in our ancestors, in hunger and violence, both clan and personal.

We lack instinctual fears of distant threats.
The pace of warming is around 1 °C per 30-40 years, and looks to remain roughly so.
For each generation, the visible changes from their baseline memories will be incremental.
There's nothing visceral about incremental change.

Hence for most, even the well-informed, climate change will remain a perennial #4 issue.
No emotional traction.

I wonder if the only people wired to get it,
to follow predictions for lost crop yields and coastal cities and have a visceral response,
are people like me on the autistic spectrum,
who've had to think about what emotion to feel, for a very long time.

The calculation is clear,
climate change will ultimately kill or prevent the existence of
orders of magnitude more than terrorism or economic depression.
Only global thermonuclear war comes close.
But its so slow, and so removed from the nasty brutish life we're evolved for,
that only for human outliers will climate change
have the emotional weight it deserves.

the visible changes from their baseline memories will be incremental.

the one significant exception to this may be when the increment of loss is a coastal city with a large population, representing a high concentration of capital investment. but for those not directly involved in the loss, it will be less visceral, even though there may well be 40-story buildings abandoned and moldering for decades after they become unusable. see 'abandoned amusement park' thread.

The problem with that is that there's a long lag between emissions and loss of coasts.

Business as usual emissions, at worst, will result in about 2 m mean sea level rise this century. Look at what 2 m means. It means New Orleans loses its wetlands buffer, Norfolk has to build a seawall, and Battery Park will be built up, but in most places, its survivable. Even if those emissions halted in 2100, Antarctica and Greenland continue melting inexorably, with most gone over the next millennium, and the seas thermally expand as they warm to the bottom over the next several millennia. What was 2 m when we had an opportunity to change the trajectory is more like 40 m in the year 3000, and perhaps 60 m by the time everything fully equilibrates.

Gore took the wrong tack entirely in focusing on sea-level in Inconvenient Truth. The focus needs to be on droughts and the food system, as these will be visible this century. With stagnant and declining yields, food prices will rise to require ever more income in the developed world, but in the developing world, climate change will manifest as famine, civil collapse, and refugee crises. Developed nation militaries already think in terms of walls and lethal force against climate refugees, and I expect European navies to start sinking refugee boats in my lifetime.

But, will Joe Blow in Wisconsin connect his energy use with these outcomes? I'm not so sure.

By the way, has this thread mentioned the new documentary Age of Consequences, which focuses on the national security consequences of climate change?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnvrJ0vkPAM

The Age of Consequences website

NYC premiere at the IFC is Monday, November 14. Its the sort of film I'd hope might get through to GOP mindsets.

https://twitter.com/PaulHBeckwith/status/797369336612716544

Its the sort of film I'd hope might get through to GOP mindsets.

I've been in arguments with conservatives before who've brought up the Navy researching algae-based biodiesel as an example of budgetary pork, so I don't have high expectations that DOD-based projections will do much to sway them.

The difference is the DOD studies report on consequences that matter to them: millions, billions of brown skinned people, at the borders.

I've been thinking about asking this here for a while, and now seems like a particularly good time: are there any nonprofits that any of you would recommend donating to? I'd be interested in basically any angle on the issue: helping populations threatened by changes like sea levels or droughts, land conservation, legal initiatives, disseminating alternative energy tech, etc.

On the political side, I recommend Citizen's Climate Lobby.

And after the Sierra Club opposed I-732, I sent them a letter and won't contribute again.

sanpaku, how do you feel about capitalism's relationship to climate change? is fighting to end capitalism a worthwhile -- if quixotic -- political goal?

I'm currently reading Felicity Scott's (great) Outlaw Territories - very 'academic' (Zone Books) and she's an architectural historian by discipline, but one of the threads running through it is the development in the early 1970s of a certain, very delimited, official version of what the problems of the 'environment' were, and what kind of solutions would work on it. She's good at tracing different groups and concerns - hippie back-to-the-land characters, Nixonian politicos, dyed-in-the-wool technocrats, white people who read The Population Bomb and locked onto fears of ~teeming, starving Third World hordes~ surging onto their shores - and how they ended up converging in certain spaces and times. Basically, you end up with global capital preferring to imagine environmental problems as ones solved by adding more neo-colonial developmentalism, with negative externalities borne by the developing world.

She also marks exceptions, and moments where other narratives break through, as where Asian, African and South American delegations to UN conferences challenge the assumed problems and solutions and basically pointed out that their environmental problems are caused by the logics of First-World corporations and capitalism generally. Not expressly on-topic for this thread, but several of the last few posts have kind of reminded me of this.

xp
thanks Sanpaku. Looking at that site also reminded me to check what happened to that Florida solar power amendment; some good news there at least: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article114377458.html

mbison: Capitalism (by which I mean directing investment through financial intermediaries) is the only alternative to command economies to redirect large scale investment to worthwhile goals. It will work for public goods with the right incentives. And command economies have a very bad record for improving general prosperity. What works is regulated captitalism with social safety nets.

Right now, the incentives favor ignoring the external cost of carbon emissions, but this can in theory easily be fixed. Only a few entities are extracting fossil fuels from the ground or import fossil fuels from overseas. That carbon can be taxed at a rate commensurate with the environmental costs. Its a regressive tax, so to limit the effects on the poor we cut other regressive taxes like sales and payroll taxes. This sort of approach is better than grants for green energy, as it changes the economic landscape for all in a predictable way. It doesn't pick winners with dubious economics, like rooftop solar. It provides incentives for conservation measures (improving insulation with spraycrete, etc), which are at least half the game.

I'm almost as disappointed in the defeat of I-732 (Washington state carbon tax), in which the Sierra Club joined the Koch Brothers in opposition, as I am with the presidential election.

mbison: Capitalism (by which I mean directing investment through financial intermediaries) is the only alternative to command economies to redirect large scale investment to worthwhile goals. It will work for public goods with the right incentives. And command economies have a very bad record for improving general prosperity. What works is regulated capitalism with social safety nets.

Right now, the incentives favor ignoring the external cost of carbon emissions, but this can in theory easily be fixed. Only a few entities extract or import fossil fuels. That carbon can be taxed at a rate commensurate with the inherent environmental costs. Its a regressive tax, so to limit the effects on the poor we cut other regressive taxes like sales and payroll taxes. This sort of approach is better than grants for green energy, as it changes the economic landscape for all in a predictable way. It doesn't pick winners with dubious economics, like rooftop solar. It provides incentives for conservation measures (improving insulation with spraycrete, etc), which are at least half the game.

I'm almost as disappointed in the defeat of I-732 (Washington state carbon tax), in which the Sierra Club joined the Koch Brothers in opposition, as I am with the presidential election.

Sorry for the dupe. At least I corrected some of my grammatical errors in the second.

bise: I think to put a different spin in on capitalism, I'm a lot more dubious than Sanpaku, especially if we're talking about:

1. the consumption-based capitalism that is backing a lot of the resistance to large-scale changes (mitigation/adaptation);
2. and the focus on economic growth, which itself, as I understand it (admittedly weakly), is predicated both ever-expanding extraction of resources to eventually sell to ever-expanding (consumer) markets.

Exponential growth on a finite world is impossible.

That part of market expectations is unfounded, and sooner or later enough debts will go bad, and faith in credit-based currencies will collapse. I hope later. But money was always a consensual fiction, with no more reality outside human minds than the divine right of kings, or the state itself.

What is real, what doesn't go away when we stop believing in it, includes atmospheric greenhouse gases. They will hang around for a very long time. Currently models indicate about 60% will dissolve into acidify the oceans over the course of the next millenium, but about 40% is there for tens of thousands of years. Maybe that prevents the next scheduled ice age. But for now it causes drought in breadbaskets, reducing the carrying capacity of the planet. Our generation is making decisions that adversely impact the next hundred generations. I don't believe we have the right, and I think future generations will vilify us for thinking we did.

Do alternative economic structures offer much improvement? Judging from the polluted sites left in the Soviet sphere and the nightmarish environmental situation in China, it doesn't seem so. If humanity is to create a sustainable economy that doesn't require constant vigilance, it will be with the aid of myths that support taking the long view. The Great Spirit of the Plains Indians. Perhaps there are vengeful Gaia-like deities from Eastern religions.

For now, we don't have the benefit of those sorts of consensual fictions. Within the system we're trapped in, there's only market values, and the government can either adjust those prices to better reflect true costs (as with alcohol and tobacco), or it can choose collective suicide.

it's a few weeks old, but i missed this graph

http://i.imgur.com/IMgAi4b.png

(Gavin Schmidt is the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

in case it's not clear, the graph shows the strong correlation between temperature anomalies recorded between January-September (x-axis) and what the year-end, January-December temperature anomalies ended up being for those same years (y-axis). as you'd expect, there's a very strong correlation; if it was very hot globally from January-September of a particular year, it's fairly easy to estimate how hot it will have been by the end of the year.

so in the graph above, the real data is for 2016 is on the x-axis: from january to september 2016 it's been ~1.25C above the modern annual average. the error bar on the y-axis is showing the range of estimates for what that will look like by the end of the year, within the margin of error or confidence interval. even at the very bottom of the estimate, it would top 2015 by a large margin.

(sorry if all that is obvious, i just know from experience that some people don't intuitively understand charts like this so wanted to try to convert it into plain language).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/18/2016-locked-into-being-hottest-year-on-record-nasa-says

Appreciate it, KM.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/the-north-pole-is-an-insane-36-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.e5e857f9a1dc

cool

Comments depressing as always.

Man, the first comment is that there are no thermometers at the North Pole, so there!

I thought we had a half dozen or so weather bouys up there. We have 168, 6 of which being within 2 degrees (122 miles) of the North Pole.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/11/donald_trump_will_be_the_only_world_leader_to_deny_climate_change.html

heh

"Heh"

Not that many of the others are doing any fucking good either

we've now had a climate denying president from 2000-2008, a brief 2 year window of democratic control that didn't result in a cap and trade bill because ted kennedy died and massachusetts thought it would be good to replace him with scott brown for fun, followed by 6 years of GOP "noooooooo" + more climate denial, and now the election of a complete psychopath

you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get a psychopath

Both Arctic sea ice area and extent have been declining since Nov 15 during Arctic night. Unprecedented.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

heh

That's so unbelievably infantile. Forget about the tremendous benefit of being able to observe Earth from space. NASA is about rocket ships and spacemen, and its mission should be to boldly go plant a flag on the Kuiper belt.

excuse me i'll be in the next room puking up breakfast for the next few years. fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck, these assholes

In terms of scientific merit (ascertained by citations), NASA is probably 80% earth observations, 18% astronomy and planetary science (from unmanned probes and orbiting telescopes), and < 2% from the entire manned program.

Should probably fit in 15% aeronautical engineering type stuff in there. But as far as capital S Science goes, Earth observations are by far the most important element of NASA for the wider scientific community.

FUCK

Fucking Trump and his fucking fuckery

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/29/13780410/antarctica-glacier-ice-sheet-melting-sea-level-rising

the twitter account of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology just tweeted a Breitbart link ("Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists")

https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688

fuuuuuuuuuck this country

The chair of that committee is the rep of my district. He's a choad.

Btw surprise lots of campaign donations from energy companies

I have nothing to add except for more depressing FUCKs FUCK FUCK FUCK

If you have time, I think this is the sort of climate change message (food insecurity) that might get through to Midwesterners:

Its also really, really scary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc