The same week as Pope Francis’s historic encyclical warning of the dire dangers posed to humanity over climate change , scientists have issue new warnings that we are likely past the point of no-return to save humanity from catastrophe and possible extinction. Famed Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, a key figure in the elimination of smallpox in the 1970s, now believes that humans will be extinct in 100 years after making the planet uninhabitable. Others have pointed out that the United States and other nations continue to adopt insufficient targets from carbon reduction and that our passing the critical “3C” threshold now appears all but assured due to opponents and deniers of climate change or reforms.
Fenner insists that it is now a sure bet that we will pass the point of no return and that humanity has missed its window to act. He was reacting to the G7 announcement on Monday that it was asking all countries to reduce emissions — a meaningless effort that scientists around the world denounced as too little too late. The G7 simply asked all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in 85 years despite the overwhelming scientific data showing that such a target date would be too late to stop the disastrous course for the planet.
The view of the scientific community is that no treaty that emerges from the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for November’s United Nations climate conference in Paris, can now avoid the global disaster.
Scientists generally use the target of 2 degrees Celsius as the level that must not be passed. At 3C, the trend is viewed as unstoppable. Even the Pentagon now rates climate change as a “Threat Multiplier” and an existential threat.
While the Obama Administration has moved aggressively, the U.S. target (a 26 percent to 28 percent decrease from 2005 levels by 2025) is viewed as based on clearly erroneous and rosy projections. The European Union has proposed a 40 percent decrease from 1990 levels by 2030 while China as usual is the worst with a call for an unspecified emissions peak by 2030.
There have been dozens of academic publications from around the world reaching basically the same conclusions from leading academics and institutions. For the less scientifically trained, Bill McKibben did an oft-cited piece in in 2012 explaining the stark realities of these figures and why they will not avoid disaster. McKibben noted that the target temperature has already increased 0.8C, and even if we were to stop all carbon-dioxide emissions today, it would increase another 0.8C simply due to the existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That would leave only a 0.4C buffer to hitting 2C. The failure to act by humanity has squandered its chance to avert the global catastrophic results. Indeed, as Pope Francis expressly denounced, powerful industrial interests have succeeded in blocking efforts to act and delaying any meaningful reforms. For many scientists, it is the Nero complex of fiddling as the planet burns.
The 100 year prediction of demise seems a bit too specific a time frame but that period does represent the passing of the critical 3C line that is expected to trigger catastrophic and cascading global changes. Regardless of whether we are speaking of extinction in a 100 years or worldwide famine and natural disasters, many of us are left to marvel at man’s capacity for avoidance of difficult challenges, even when our very existence could rest in the balance. The refusal to act in the face of such overwhelming scientific evidence and warnings is a sad (and possibly lethal) conclusion of our species.
Groty – great articles. It’s very interesting that arid plants seem most sensitive to CO2 fertilization. And it makes sense that the Central European trees would respond, as well, if not as spectacularly.
My concern is that the global trend is towards deforestation, not revegetation. We are still losing vast areas of forest every year, especially in South America. And the loss of a forest leads to desertification. So, on the one hand, arid plants are improving with carbon fertilization, but on the other we are making more desert areas.
Forestry can treat logging as a renewable resource if properly managed, and limited to land devoted to this resource, planted heavily with valuable timber. Of course, those areas are not diverse but more like monoculture.
Not to worry. Mr. Universe is going to bring the curtain down well before those pesky Republicans. Mario Reading published that Nostradamus predicted the end of the world circa 2070. To wit,
“He found that Nostradamus had over 800 prophecies that have come true, and according to Reading’s interpretation, here are some events yet to come in this century:”
•2016– Hillary Clinton “a woman taking the role of man,” will be elected president. During her presidency, there’ll be trouble in Eastern Europe/Russia.
•2016– Ecological disaster linked to war.
•2017– An attack on a US naval base by a rejuvenated Al Qaeda or ISIS.
•2028– The discovery of the Philosopher’s Stone (long sought alchemical substance).
•2040– End of monarchy in Britain.
•2041– The birth of a visionary Pan-African leader.
•2062– Worldwide epidemic.
•2069– A damaging asteroid strike.
•2070– A third world war brought about by the 3rd Antichrist.
forgotwhoiam –
Who were the first two Anti-Christs?
Groty – you make a good point that the US has done more to fight air pollution than its neighbors. China and Russia are examples of The Tragedy of the Commons.
On the other hand, while we strengthen air pollution controls, we ship more and more toxic e-waste to be sorted through in other countries. We’ve made huge plastic gyrating islands in our oceans. Our government encourages the use of CFLs, even though the EPA has a site devoted to the haz mat cleanup protocol when one breaks and spews mercury dust everywhere. How many people do they think go through that, vs just throw them in the trash? (This is one of my frustrations in the laser focus on carbon to the detriment of other, needed, concerns.)
CA is currently pushing to de-vegetate the state encouraging people to replace lawns with plastic grass instead of CA natives.
Thanks for the link on Sahara Greening. And I am very interested in looking at the latest global forest numbers. I will check them out.
Karen: “Meanwhile, we continue the trend of polluting our air, ground, and water, deforestation, de-vegation, and desertification apace.”
Not really. At least not in the U.S. and Europe.
I linked yesterday to a chart from the EPA demonstrating emissions for six major pollutants in the U.S. have been reduced 68% since 1970. CO2 emissions in the U.S. are lower now than they were in 2006, and have quite likely peaked no matter what the bureaucrats do as the economy continues to shift toward services and digitization. There are tons of studies showing total global forest acreage is expanding and trees are growing more robustly. The globe is getting considerably greener.
The data for the following study have been collected regularly since 1870, making it an especially solid study. Some tree species are experiencing phenomenal growth characteristics.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140912/ncomms5967/full/ncomms5967.html
And here’s a study purporting to show a positive swing in vegetative growth in mostly arid and semi-arid regions of the world thanks to higher CO2 levels.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-carbon-dioxide-desert-greening-01209.html
Other studies show the Sahara and Sahel deserts are greening. Just Google “Sahara Greening” or “Sahel Greening” or something like that and you’ll see lots of stories.
isidore – they predicted global cooling until only the past few decades. So any recommendations would obviously be working at cross purposes to today’s predicted global warming.
Another aspect that gives me chills is I clearly recall the serious discussion of deliberately sending particulates into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays and fight global warming. The possibility of orchestrating a global catastrophe with such a measure is sobering.
Prairie Rose – I forgot to mention one other thing. Someone would have to painstakingly document the surrounding vegetation and note any changes since its installation (over 100 years ago) until present day for each and every weather station in order to have any chance of accurately adjusting the data.
An example of how far astray we are from this ideal: They relied on the notes of a Chinese colleague and her recollections on the rural Chinese stations, the vast majority of which actually were moved. Plus she then lost all her notes in an office move. This literally happened and was discussed among the scientists via email.
I feel guilty mowing my mother’s grass. If we had listened to the scientists of the 1950’s warning us of upcoming global warming instead of chasing down suspected commies we may not have arrived at this point. Hopefully those in control do not get any weird ideas on how they are going to handle/influence the immediate future (though we seem to be getting hints).
For any up and coming movie script writer this would make a great awareness film – Homo sapiens dies out, but a few rodents from Tunisia make it through the upcoming ecosystem holocaust – give it 300 million years, and presto, intelligent life emerges once again from the tropical forests – the continents are all back together, etc. Only this time have this new intelligent primate race zeroing in on the archaeological remains of a past intelligent civilization of earlier primates. Rats are here, and mammals made it through the last methane/sulfide hell on earth. Just a thought. Strikes me as having great potential for a thriller.
The more things change. . . Anyway, hey it’s Miller Time!!!
Instead of “ascension robes”, now we have “carbon credits.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Prairie Rose – and then there are all the adjustments that would need to be made to that hypothetical weather station to adjust for the annual growth and leaf pattern of the tree before it was cut down. If it was deciduous, then there would ALSO need to be seasonal adjustments for the varying shade, as well as adjusting for the seasonal angel of the sun. (The shade is cast in a completly different direction winter and summer.)
Thanks, Karen. This is definitely a subject that has piqued my interest; I just haven’t read much of the literature.
Prairie Rose:
Here’s a link to the EPA discussing heat island effect. There’s a link at the bottom you can navigate to some of the calculations used.
This statement is included:
“The data may be corrected in a variety of ways. In some cases, researchers statistically adjust urban weather station data to match trends seen in nearby rural stations; in other analyses urban data are simply excluded from the record.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the impact of urban heat islands on temperature records is “real but local,” and has only a negligible effect on regional or global trends.2 The IPCC also noted that urban heat island effects on local climate appear to include changes in precipitation, clouds, and daily temperature range.”
My concerns are that there are documented cases in which rural temperature data was actually increased. Many rural stations have been lost, leaving us to rely more heavily on urban stations than we should. The methodology of the adjustments, because of some very questionable examples like reversing cooling trends. And the IPCC seems to contradict itself. On the one hand, it dismisses heat island effects as local, but on the other admits that it can affect rainfall and cloud cover. I suppose this can also be local, but it would have a far greater reach than just a few kilometers.
What I find off-putting is that many of us have valid, sincere concerns but our questions are dismissed because this has become fanatical and political. Questions are just not allowed or you’ll be called any number of catchy names.
Science IS about asking questions and discussing ideas.
I care about the environment. After all, I have to live here, breathe the air, drink the water, and eat the food. If I have a question about the science, I expect to be able to find an answer without this immediate pushback that has become de rigueur.
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/measuring.htm
Prairie Rose – I find this kind of science very interesting. Politics ruins anything it touches, including science. Some of this questionable massaging of data may have been politically driven. And then everyone gets into their political trenches. It takes all the fun out of it.
Science shouldn’t be political. It should just be data, hypothesis, theory, conclusion. And usually a lot of scientists arguing in between.
They try to homogenize the data, but an average would give a completely incorrect reading.
Here’s an example:
Let’s say the station originated near a sapling, which grew up to shade the station and shelter it from the wind. Then, the tree was cut down and replaced with a blacktop parking lot. An average of the baking hot parking lot with the shaded reading would not give an accurate reading of what the temperature actually was.
And then there is the station that started out in weeds, which were all chopped down for weed abatement fire control. That changes the humidity.
Droughts can change the types of vegetation growing around a station over the course of 100 years – from bush to grassland.
You can walk around your own house and find a great many different microclimates. One side of my house is several degrees warmer than the other, between the differences in shade, lying in the lee, angle of the sun, etc.
Making these adjustments is really complicated. You cannot keep all variables the same. Trees grow and are cut down. Cities grow up. Vegetation changes. It would be extremely rare for a single station to experience the exact same environmental parameters over 100 years. That’s why any computer modeling and homogenization attempts are so heavily scrutinized and hotly debated at times.
Karen – when the instruments were put in at the Phoenix Airport (Sky Harbor) it was outside the city limits. Now it is in the middle of the darn city. The city surrounds it. Tempe is complaining and just sued over noise from planes landing using Tempe as a landing pattern. They are supposed to come in over the Salt River, but the planes have been moving south of the river put them in a high residential area.
Good point, Karen, about the problem of moving the monitors. Can the results be averaged?
Prairie Rose – there are many interesting ways to combat the heat island effects of urbanization. Some of which are:
1. Painting roofs with a particular, reflective, white surface causes even more cooling than
2. Roof gardens. Although those have an added benefit of creating local produce and habitat for pollinators.
3. Urban landscaping that creates vegetation in the city, breaking up the hardscape
4. LEED design of hardscape to maximize water penetration and minimize hardscape
5. LEED design of buildings to minimize environmental impact and maximize efficiency and use of renewable resources.
I recall a great quote from Charleston Heston that went something like this – We don’t need to save the planet. Earth will survive without us. We need to save ourselves.
The Earth has moved on after many dominant species extinctions. If we follow China and Russia’s lead, and pollute as fast as we can, we’re only poisoning our own health.
So I do want us to work for a healthy environment.
On the other hand . . .
It is irresponsible to say that no matter what we do, we will ALL DIE in 100 years. That can literally lead people to kill themselves and their family, as has happened before during periods of hysteria. If a trusted scientist says all human life will go extinct, that can have a tremendous impact on people. I cannot in good conscience just let that pass.
Over the years, so many doomsday scientists have predicted our extinction by now that most of us are desensitized to it. And we certainly would not want to just give up cleaning up our environment. But there are other people who naively trust scientists like this. Because that’s the message he sends – give up. Don’t bother. It won’t help us anyway. What an irresponsible thing to say.
Paul – Prairie Rose – “they moved it once and we had the highest recorded temperature every in Phoenix (121) so they decided to move it to a cooler place, but still at the airport.” They are not supposed to move the temperature stations. That’s the entire point. You can’t compare a temperature reading one year with another reading a few meters away with different heat island effects, humidity, exposure to wind, etc.
This is exactly the kind of thing that really irritates me. Because it’s come out that many have, in fact, been moved.
“Anyone claiming that it’s all lost, we’re dead in 100 years no matter what we do can very likely touch off the hysteria of Y2K, in which the naive actually did kill themselves, or gave away all their possessions to build bunkers. And it creates a “why bother” mentality. If the end result is the same, why invest any more effort?”
***********************
So, in other words, to hell with our children and grandchildren. The politics of denial trumps the future for our progeny.
It’s amazing that Americans will waste trillions of dollars on needless wars of their own creation, they will waste trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy hoping for that voodoo economic model to pan out, they will spend trillions on spy agencies that attack the very fabric of American life while accomplishing little if anything of value, but recognize human made climate change and its consequences? Are you kidding me??? No way!! It’s all a fraud!!! It’s all a way to the one world order!!! It’s a sham!!! All scientists are conspiring to control our thoughts and actions!!! American idiot. Fighting the shadows and ignoring the beast……
So, just to clarify my own personal opinion on anthropogenic climate change – I can draw no conclusions from data infilled by relatively few urban temperature stations. ALL of the problems with the data must be addressed and dealt with. ALL raw data must be accessible for independent review, as is typical of most research. They have made some efforts, but it’s clearly not enough.
And I am frustrated that these scandals of raw data mismanagement and study design flaws keep popping up. Fix the methodology, already.
Meanwhile, we continue the trend of polluting our air, ground, and water, deforestation, de-vegation, and desertification apace.