Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumThe climate fact no one will admit: 2 °C warming is inevitable
From the New Scientist:
It is time to start preparing for a world more than 2 °C warmer than now. The UN’s own analysis of what countries are offering to do to limit greenhouse gas emissions shows they fall far short of what’s required. In fact, they suggest the world will have emitted enough carbon dioxide to warm the planet 2 °C by around 2036.
These offers, formally known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs, will be the basis of the global treaty on climate change to be finalised in Paris in December. It was always clear that this treaty would not go nearly far enough to limit warming to 2 °C by 2100, but now the numbers are in.
Ahead of the meeting, 119 INDCs have been submitted, representing 147 countries and 88 per cent of current emissions. The UN has now released a synthesis report analysing what impact they will have. It concludes that even if countries stick to them, annual global emissions will hit 43 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) by 2030 – and will still be rising.
It has been calculated that to have a 66 per cent chance of limiting warming to 2 °C, cumulative emissions from 2011 must be limited to 1000 GtCO2. The UN report, however, says we’ll have burned through 75 per cent of this carbon budget by 2030. That means we could only emit another 250 GtCO2 after 2030 – which means we’ll bust the budget in around 2036 assuming emissions stay above 40 GtCO2 per year.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I can't believe how stupid we are.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)in my opinion. Scientists have been intimidated into not publishing the real numbers and are now getting very alarmed at how rapidly things are happening.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Yes, I'm also sensing a science freakout in progress.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What you've got now are scientists in the first stages of inebriated acceptance.
paul ofnoclique
(81 posts)the weak proposals about to come out of Paris.
Jim__
(15,275 posts)... the republican hearings on why the scientists didn't warn us.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,399 posts)
OKIsItJustMe
(22,089 posts)There are plenty of studies that indicate that > 2°C is essentially inevitable.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)anyone who talks to the public. Kevin Anderson, David Wasdell and Jim Hansen don't have a lot of reach into the happs of power and communication. The man in the street is only starting to hear this message through the noise of Exxon and the Heartland Institute this year, but look at this excerpt from the story:
“Would you want that for your children,” she responded. “This is about the quality of life on this planet.” The Paris treaty would “build a pathway” to 2 °C, she said, by paving the way for further cuts.
This is the woman who has the ear of the world on climate change, not angry wonks like Anderson and Wasdell. If she can't tell us the truth, we can't win the battle. And she is emotionally unable to accept the situation and say what needs to be said. The politicians mostly heave a huge sigh of relief that they have a story they can sell to their electorates, and fall into lockstep behind her.
OKIsItJustMe
(22,089 posts)…
Nature Climate Change 4, 164–166 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2148
Published online 26 February 2014
[font size=3]It is time to acknowledge that global average temperatures are likely to rise above the 2 °C policy target and consider how that deeply troubling prospect should affect priorities for communicating and managing the risks of a dangerously warming climate.
…[/font][/font]
http://www.voxeu.org/article/improbable-2-c-global-warming-target
Carlo Carraro, Emanuele Massetti 03 September 2009
[font size=3]Mitigating global warning is a pressing and daunting task for the world’s major economies. This column says that the 2°C target set by G8 leaders is both politically and technologically unrealistic. It argues they must adopt more realistic targets and long-term commitments to adaptation plans.
…[/font][/font]
Hansen et al. (2008)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
…
[font size=2]Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO₂ fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.[/font]
[font size=3]…
2.4. Warming “in the pipeline”
The expanded time scale for the industrial era (Fig. 2) reveals a growing gap between actual global temperature (purple curve) and equilibrium (long-term) temperature response based on the net estimated climate forcing (black curve). Ocean and ice sheet response times together account for this gap, which is now 2.0°C.
…[/font][/font]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I don't think that 95% of the planet's population has a clue that it's even possible, let alone what it means.
OKIsItJustMe
(22,089 posts)I find it difficult to judge what, “people are generally,” thinking.
On the whole, it seems to me that a significant portion of people are resigned to their “fate.” (Whatever that may prove to be.)
It seems to me that, on the whole, there are two very large factions, who (without any particularly solid scientific basis for their “beliefs”) either “believe in,” or don’t “believe in” climate change.
Even those who “believe in” climate change seem unwilling to do much to affect/avoid their “fate.”
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Most Americans know the climate is changing, but they say they are just not that worried about it, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. And that is keeping the American public from demanding and getting the changes that are necessary to prevent global warming from reaching a crisis, according to climate and social scientists.
As top-level international negotiations to try to limit greenhouse gas emissions start later this month in Paris, the AP-NORC poll taken in mid-October shows about two out of three Americans accept global warming and the vast majority of those say human activities are at least part of the cause.
However, fewer than one in four Americans are extremely or very worried about it, according the poll of 1,058 people. About one out of three Americans are moderately worried and the highest percentage of those polled - 38 percent - were not too worried or not at all worried.
Despite high profile preaching by Pope Francis, only 36 percent of Americans see global warming as a moral issue and only a quarter of those asked see it as a fairness issue, according to the poll which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
"The big deal is that climate has not been a voting issue of the American population," said Dana Fisher, director of the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland. "If the American population were left to lead on the issue of climate, it's just not going to happen."
NOW are we screwed?
Boomer
(4,416 posts)I live in a somewhat conservative region of the U.S., but even more importantly in a very mixed poor/working class neighborhood. I doubt there's a person here who gives any thought at all to climate change. Their focus is pretty much on getting through the day and worrying if they can feed themselves and their family on their next paycheck. They may read the local newspaper, but their homes are devoid of books and their conversations are about church, about who is ill, about who has had a falling out with who. The world beyond their family and friends is dim and not of much interest to them.
Our society is structured in such a way that worrying about climate, being even COGNIZANT of climate change, is a class luxury.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"Our society is structured in such a way that worrying about climate, being even COGNIZANT of climate change, is a class luxury."
Hammer, meet nail.
OKIsItJustMe
(22,089 posts)[font size=4 color="blue"]New UN Report Synthesizes National Climate Plans from 146 Countries[/font]
[font size=3](Berlin, 30 October 2015) – An unprecedented world-wide effort is underway to combat climate change, building confidence that nations can cost effectively meet their stated objective of keeping a global temperature rise to under 2 degree C.
A report released today by the UNFCCC secretariat, assessing the collective impact of over 140 national climate action plans, indicates that together they can dramatically slow global emissions into the atmosphere. Another key finding is that the aggregate impact of the “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDCs) will lead to a fall in per capita emissions over the coming 15 years.
The final full document "Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions" can be accessed here. The report along with all other related documents and information can be found on the UNFCCC website Synthesis Report page.
…
“The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs,” said Ms. Figueres.
…[/font][/font]
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
Mosby
(19,491 posts)
pscot
(21,044 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
mollyonthefeeds
(1 post)hatrack
(65,130 posts)The extra amount of carbon emitted equals all of Germany's annual emissions from all fossil fuels.
So, yeah, good luck with that.
NickB79
(20,400 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)The reality is that we don't know what the 'correct' value for climate sensitivity is.
A committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C, which works out to be 1.5°C - 4.5°C. In the most recent IPCC report (AR5) the IPCC said there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.
So after more than 30 years, we have made absolutely zero progress in narrowing down the range for what is probably the most important value in the science of climate change. I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that anyone who claims to know the actual climate sensitivity value is either lying or seriously deluded.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But I repeat myself...
hatrack
(65,130 posts)Once we're past the Event Horizon, it will all become so clear.
We'll know precisely how accurate our modeling data were.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)...but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are claiming that unless we make massive changes in the global economy immediately we are doomed. I'm afraid to support that claim you'll need to do a little better than a 3° spread.
NickB79
(20,400 posts)You want to gamble and see what double that amount has in store for our planet?
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)When you say "we're already seeing massive, global climate impacts", most people wonder what the hell you are talking about. What things would you characterize as "massive" impacts? A few centimeters of sea level rise? A statistically ambiguous increase in tropical storms? It's time to cut down on the hyperbole before you loose touch with the majority whose support you need to enact change.
NickB79
(20,400 posts)http://www.livescience.com/23026-global-warming-changing-world.html
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/11/06/these-weather-events-were-affected-by-climate-change-last-year/
http://www.space.com/25782-climate-change-visible-space-nasa-chief.html
But please, present all the counter-evidence you'd like. I'm sure you can find a bunch of links at reputable sites like WattsUpWithThat, or Exxon-Mobil.com.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)What I am trying to say is that you need to realize that most people have radically different views of what is important than you do. Take a look at that list of 8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World. Do you really think people consider those things to be "massive, global impacts"? An increasing numbers of stray cats and kittens (#7)? A decline in songbirds (#6)? The Cetti's warbler habitat moving north by more than 90 miles (#1)? Seriously?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad populum"? Your comment, "What I am trying to say is that you need to realize that most people have radically different views of what is important than you do" is a letter-perfect example of this fallacious style of reasoning.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"
is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"
, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans" . It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect.You appear to suffer from an inability to accept any idea that is not popular.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)It is simply not possible to prove whether a subjective statement is true or false.
The poster stated that "we're already seeing massive, global climate impacts". Given the term 'massive' is a subjective one and not a scientific descriptor with a precise meaning, trying to prove the truth or falsehood of the statement is in fact impossible. I was therefore not trying to evaluate the 'truth' of the assertion, but merely trying to determine if a majority or a even large number of people agree with it. Given that action on climate change will require the support of large numbers of democratically elected officials, this is a relevant question.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)And if your opinion is different, so be it.
Why does establishing scientific truth or falsehood on a social web site matter to you?
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)Especially when I specifically said:
I was therefore not trying to evaluate the 'truth' of the assertion, but merely trying to determine if a majority or a even large number of people agree with it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)No matter how many or few of them there are?
I sure as fuck don't.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)Otherwise you wouldn't respond to other people's posts.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Actually, the reason I reply is that I want them to care about what I think... 
NickB79
(20,400 posts)https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/arctic-sea-ice-summertime-minimum-is-fourth-lowest-on-record/
Lowest maximum ice extent on record, and one of the lowest summertime extents as well.
Is the 5.5 million square miles of the Arctic region not massive enough for you to take an interest in?
Boomer
(4,416 posts)Most people don't hold a conceptual model of global climate mechanics in their head. It's an entirely different mindset that many of us here on DU take for granted (especially in the E&E group), but that really does set us apart.
The vast majority of people I know through the normal course of daily life all navigate a much smaller world that does not include what may be happening in the Arctic. It's far less a physical world than it is a social world. They see their lives through their connections to people -- family, friends, co-workers, neighbors. They react emotionally to actual events that affect the people they know. They react to events they see. Everything else is dim and only fleetingly acknowledged. A truly catastrophic natural disaster in another country -- if it involves sufficient mortality -- will catch their attention, but again, because people are affected.
If we don't acknowledge the different paradigms in which people live, social versus physical, we'll never understand why so many people can be so oblivious to the events that alarm others. And why they will continue to ignore climate change warnings until the day Florida is submerged and they worry about their sister's family. Again, it's their SISTER they care about; the larger context of why she drowned, not so much.
sue4e3
(762 posts)of our planet. My husband who has more of a general working knowledge of science than I do, sees me stress everyday. He asked me is there anything you can do about it that you have not already done? Compared to average I have done quite a bit. It still falls painfully short. My answer was no. He than asked me why do you keep reading it? answering himself he said so you can worry for our children, pray for us to never have grandchildren, cry at night when you think I don't know, make yourself so sick that the life you do have , if your not careful will mean nothing. There may be very good reasons why people keep their circles more emotional and small. I used to believe knowledge was power. I don't any more . It's unfortunate thing I can't change who I am. I still ask , seek and find
Boomer
(4,416 posts)Emotional detachment comes easily to me, but I'm well aware that it doesn't to other people. I don't know how exactly you can develop the ability to seek, find and not be destroyed by that knowledge, but you need to work on that. Otherwise you'll sacrifice your own peace of mind, and that of your family, to no good purpose.
Live in the moment, appreciate what you have right now. If you continually live in your vision of a future holocaust, you're squandering everything that is precious about being alive. If we really are headed for disaster, then it's all the more important to treasure the present. The future will take care of itself whether you're agonizing over it or not.
For me, at least, this doesn't mean ignoring the topic of climate change or living in ignorance. I follow the science reports as best I can as a layman, and I tend to agree with some of the most pessimistic interpretations of that data. I can balance my daily life and concerns against the larger backdrop of a gathering storm.
Right now. today, my life is good. I am immeasurably thankful for that.
sue4e3
(762 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My slide into despair began in 2004 with Peak Oil, then expanded over the following few years to include climate change, species extinctions and the all rest of our depredations of the biosphere. For almost four years I was angry and depressed to the point of being suicidal. My behaviour became anti-social. I lost my marriage because I was so unpleasant to be around.
I knew the bell of of knowledge couldn't be un-rung, but I also knew I couldn't go on the way I was. I decided to try and find some way to achieve equanimity while still acknowledging what I had learned. One of the things I discovered in that process is why so many people in our circumstances have begun to follow the principles of Buddhism.
Buddhism and its various Eastern relatives such as Taoism have some very important things going for them, that bear directly on the issues that arise when ecology collides with psychology.
To start with, they are the original "complex system" philosophies. One of their core principles is that everything is connected to everything else. No object, state or process exists in isolation. Everything depends on everything else. This is the fundamental ecological principle that is finally being rehabilitated into Western science, as an antidote to its methodological reductionism.
Another fundamental principle of these philosophies is that conscious human agency is far less important to how things turn out, compared to the state of the larger universe we live in and the principles that drive it though changes. This is recognized most explicitly by Taoism in the concept of "wu wei" or "effortless doing". Unfortunately, this perception of the minuscule power of human agency within the big picture is often mischaracterized and denigrated as fatalism or nihilism by those who are afraid of it, those whose identity is bound up with the need to control outcomes.
The third thing that Buddhism etc. bring to the table is the concept of non-attachment. This is the idea that it's perfectly OK, natural and right that the universe does whatever it does, and a recognition that the mental anguish we experience as a result is mostly because we cling to the desire that things should be different than they are. (IMO "should" is one of the most dangerous words in the English language...)
Even though I don't label myself a Buddhist, I've found that by integrating these three teachings I've finally been able to approach some measure of emotional balance and peace of mind, and have been able to discard most of my dread and despair.
There is definitely a price for following this path. Most of the committed environmentalists I know utterly reject the idea of non-attachment, seeing it as a convenient excuse for being morally lazy. As a result I have lost most of my previous sense of connection and shared struggle with the mainstream environmental movement.
Fortunately, there is a growing number of ex-environmentalists (e.g. Paul Kingsnorth) who share these perceptions. We are finding each other on-line, and loose communities of different sorts are beginning to appear. For someone who is experiencing the kind of grief and suffering you are, they can be healing oases of sanity.
sue4e3
(762 posts)and it shouldn't be. I am a deep rooted christian and giving thier fate to God has given me only a mild sense of relief. At some point I will find peace, as I pray for it for so many others. I do thank you though.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)When we see others in distress, all we can offer is what we know.
I hope your faith brings you the peace you and your family need.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)...doesn't mean much when the record starts in 1979.
More importantly, regardless of what I think, I'm pretty sure most people don't consider the loss of half of Arctic sea counts as "massive, global climate impacts" either.
NickB79
(20,400 posts)"Most people" voted for Reagan and Bush in the US.
"Most people" believed in trickle-down economics.
"Most people" in the US still entertain some belief that creationism is either real, or deserves time alongside evolution in classrooms.
"Most people" care more about Dancing with the Stars or Monday Night Football than the destruction of a coral reef or a rainforest.
What most people consider important is not the same as what most people WHO STUDY CLIMATE FOR A LIVING consider important.
Scientific evidence isn't a popularity contest or up for a popular vote, and yes, the loss of MILLIONS of square kilometers of sea ice does in fact constitute a massive, global impact, despite your insistence that it does not.
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)How does the loss of millions of square kilometers of sea ice impact the average person? I'm not talking about what you think will happen in the long run as a result, I'm talking about what is happening RIGHT NOW as a result of sea ice loss. How does the sea ice loss we have already witnessed impact the typical person's life in a personal and direct way? After all, you shouldn't call something a "massive global impact" if it doesn't actually, you know, "impact" people's lives.
NickB79
(20,400 posts)So, if it doesn't impact a large number of people's lives in the short term, it doesn't rise to a massive, global impact?
By that logic, many repulsive things could be done to the environment that would be permissible using your mindset.
Shoot every African elephant on the planet for ivory, it doesn't affect 99% of the people on this planet in the short term! But it would cause huge, negative changes to the African ecosystem they're a part of and wipe out a 50-million year old phyla of life.
Harpoon the last whale in the ocean, it doesn't affect 99% of the people on this planet in the short term! But it would have hugely detrimental impacts on the ocean biosphere, and wipe out a 50-million year old phyla.
Clear-cut the Alberta forests for tar sands and build the Keystone XL pipeline across farmland, it doesn't affect 99% of the people on this planet! But we'd be spoiling millions of square kilometers of land in the process.
Effects to the planet's biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere can indeed be massive and global, even if they have no immediate impact on human lives, for the simple fact that there is far more to the planet than human life. Indeed, some of the things I listed would actually IMPROVE millions of lives in the short term. Shooting elephants would generate massive profits for hunters and protect farmer's crops. Whaling to extinction would employ millions in the short term.
However, it also implies that there is no intrinsic value in the natural world beyond what human civilization can get out of it for economic growth.
Frankly, that's a position I've only seen the far right take, and it is sickening.
But even with the "small" changes we've already enacted to the planet, we are seeing lives impacted:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/climate-change-kills-400-000-a-year-new-report-reveals.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121032/map-climate-change-kills-more-people-worldwide-terrorism
Like I said in my initial post to this thread: That's the result of "only" 0.8C of warming. You want to gamble and see what 2C does?
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)You are a middle class white male living in the first world?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)What a fucking ugly tactic. 
LouisvilleDem
(303 posts)That post just screamed "first world problems".
BTW, middle class white male living in the first world describes me as well, so how can it be perceived as a slight or insult?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(10,438 posts)"NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612