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.
Max-1 … thanks for the report post. It is encouraging. I tend to be rather negative on this process of today where we’ve focused on generation rather than sustenance and storage. I am always happy to consider better alternatives, even if I believe we should drop all subsidies, and let the industry and market find a solution. The oligarchies, such as they are, may not allow that, and I find that equally aggravating…even more aggravating actually. Subsidy might be okay if we had the money, but we do not, so I see little other rational choice. Thanks for not making me out to be a troglodyte (even if I am one 🙂 ) and providing helpful information.
PS: I’ve recently visited FFS and the reaction of most of the commenters there have been supportive of divergent opinion, but there are some who act like Attila the Hun has just invaded. I’ll likely revert to just reading as a result….far less commentary. I appreciate discourse and opposing ideas, one reason I visited there, with no intention of stirring up irrational turmoil, but it happened….if I ever become obsessed with only my own ideas, please shoot me. 😀
CHICKEN LITTLE HAD A SEED FALL ON HIS TAIL AND THOUGHT THE SKY WAS FALLING. IN HIS PANIC, HE TERRIFIED EVERYONE AND THEY ALL DECIDED TO TELL THE KING. THE SLY FOX SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY TO “ASSIST” THE FRIGHTENED CROWD BY AGREEING TO TELL THE KING AS HE HERDED THEM INTO THE “SAFETY” OF HIS DEN.
THEY NEVER CAME OUT AGAIN.
****************************************
“Chicken Little”
Chicken Little was in the woods.
A seed fell on his tail.
Chicken Little said,
“The sky is falling.
I will run.”
Chicken Little met Henny Penny.
He said,
“The sky is falling, Henny Penny.”
Henny Penny said,
“How do you know, Chicken Little?”
Chicken Little said,
“Some of it fell on my tail.”
“We will run,” said Henny Penny.
“We will run and tell the king.”
They met Turkey Lurkey.
Henny Penny said,
“The sky is falling, Turkey Lurkey.”
“How do you know, Henny Penny?”
“Chicken Little told me.”
“How do you know, Chicken Little?”
“I saw it with my eyes.
I heard it with my ears.
Some of it fell on my tail.”
Turkey Lurkey said,
“We will run.
We will run and tell the king.”
They met Ducky Lucky.
Turkey Lurkey said,
“The sky is falling, Ducky Lucky.”
“How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?”
“Henny Penny told me.”
“How do you know, Henny Penny?”
“Chicken Little told me.”
“How do you know, Chicken Little?”
“I saw it with my eyes.
I heard it with my ears.
Some of it fell on my tail.”
Ducky Lucky said,
“We will run.
We will run and tell the king.”
They met Goosey Loosey.
Ducky Lucky said,
“The sky is falling, Goosey Loosey.”
“How do you know, Ducky Lucky?”
“Turkey Lurkey told me.”
“How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?”
“Henny Penny told me.”
“How do you know, Henny Penny?”
“Chicken Little told me.”
“How do you know, Chicken Little?”
“I saw it with my eyes.
I heard it with my ears.
Some of it fell on my tail.”
Goosey Loosey said,
“We will run,
We will run and tell the king.”
They met Foxy Loxy.
Goosey Loosey said,
“The sky is falling, Foxy Loxy.”
“How do you know, Goosey Loosey?”
“Ducky Lucky told me.”
“How do you know, Ducky Lucky?”
“Turkey Lurkey told me.”
“How do you know, Turkey Lurkey?”
“Henny Penny told me.”
“How do you know, Henny Penny?”
“Chicken Little told me.”
“How do you know, Chicken Little?”
“I saw it with my eyes.
I heard it with my ears.
Some of it fell on my tail.”
Foxy Loxy said,
“We will run.
We will run into my den,
And I will tell the king.”
They ran into Foxy Loxy’s den,
But they did not come out again.
***************************************
Chicken Little was in the woods.
A seed fell on his tail.
He met Henny Penny and said,
“The sky is falling.
I saw it with my eyes.
I heard it with my ears.
Some of it fell on my tail.”
He met Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky,
and Goosey Loosey.
They ran to tell the king.
They met Foxy Loxy.
They ran into his den,
And they did not come out again.
Max-1, you sound like a frightened foul approaching panic. “The sky is falling, the sky is falling,” cried Chicken Little.
Have some faith. In combat, you never know who is going to die. Whatever your fate, I’m am absolutely certain you will adapt to it and the universe will be as it should – God’s will be done. Don’t worry so much.
In your case, optimism shall lead you to understand that you and your oracles cum “scientists” DO NOT KNOW precisely if terminal global warming exists, is anthropogenic or mutable. Your actual lack of definitive facts and knowledge results in an overwhelming and compelling possibility that global warming DOES NOT exist.
Alternatively, you are resolute and determined to establish an enemy, unify your forces of parasitism and dependency, and press on with your Crusade to impose the adherence and slavery of global communism, the facts be damned.
The latter may be the ONLY FACT we can prove.
The Pale Scot,
You bring up some interesting points regarding agriculture.
Your concerns focus on the current model of agriculture: factory farming. How would you approach this problem? Could permaculture be a solution?
The Pope, showing how the Church of Global Warming works, banned a scientist from Paris who had an opposing view from the meeting that helped put the polemic together. He was tentatively invited then the fundamentalist “scientist” screamed like little girls and he was kicked out of the meeting. Lovely!
We have propane, too. So expensive!!!
Regarding solar panels. My half blind guy and I live on a boat at a marina. We have one solar panel (Chicago Tools and it was cheap) which charges four house batteries. Two house batteries run all the LED lights and several other devices including sump pumps. There is an AC cord at the dock. The electric bill for last month was eleven dollars. That was for AC and a refridgerator. We heat with propane. Solar is here now. We just need to embrace it.
But if Planet Earth only has another 100 years then to hell with it.
davep:
My point is that this strange pushback on asking honest questions is misguided. It’s not that you shouldn’t “trust” science. It’s that a spirit of investigation and inquiry is good, because we make new discoveries every day. Yesterday’s accepted conclusions are tomorrow’s quaint dated beliefs.
For instance, Tyrannosaurus was considered to be the largest predator ever to have roamed Earth until 1994, when the Giganotosaurus was found. Scientists were absolutely certain dinosaurs were cold blooded, and were quite surprised to discover they were not. Until rather recently, scientist were absolutely, dead certain we were racing towards a new Ice Age, and were declaring we should prepare accordingly. Obviously, those preparations would be completely unhelpful if the climate actually warms instead. But they were just as certain then as they are now that it’s warming. Which is what makes forbidding questions and discussion such a mad idea.
It is therefor this trend that anyone who asks questions is ridiculed, mocked, or called names that is so very wrong. You will win no people to your side by making fun of them.
I’m neither a “denier” nor a “true believer” or any other silly name because I have serious questions about the data, such as stations that were moved. I need those issues resolved, and it would be quite nice if that could happen without the name calling.
So I skimmed thru the comments and saw plenty of social commentaries about the validity of climate change science but didn’t see any talk of the looming production limits that will kick in first before climate change presses the delete button, like phosphates and fresh water.
Phosphate is an essential fertilizer and is produced in only 2 places, Florida and Morocco. The FL site is estimated to have 30-50 years of supply if the USA continues to allow it to be exported, mostly to China. Moracco says it has 50-100 years of production. I have no confidence in that number since like the oil monarchies nearby, proper survey info is unavailable, the information that has been released seems inconsistent.
Phosphate is an element; there is no technological substitute for it. Phosphate is what makes aerobic respiration possible, the Kreb’s Cycle and ATP synthesis don’t happen without it. You can’t cure an iron deficiency with zinc tablets, and no phosphate means much lower levels of agricultural production. It takes one ton of phosphate to produce every 130 tons of grain.
Tracking with the peak phosphate timeline is the depletion of fossil water supplies in the main grain growing areas of the world. The USA, Australia, India and China all rely on non-recharging aquifers for thirty to sixty percent of their grain production alone, wells that began 30 ft down are now over a 100 ft deep in the USA, over a thousand meters deep in China and India. Eventually the quality of the water or the feasibility of pumping it economically will end the practice. China hit peak grain production in 1998; the decline is attributed in part to aquifer depletion along with a drop in rainfall. To emphasis the human stupidity about this subject, Saudi Arabia accelerated its fossil water depletion by growing wheat in the desert. Today, the Saudis import all their wheat anyway.
It is theoretically possible that an endless supply of dirt cheap energy could solve these issues. Practical fusion power or cheap high efficiency solar panels could make mass desalinization and mineral extraction from sewage or seawater possible, but it’s very unlikely. Without phosphates and fossil water world agriculture might support three or four billion people as long as rainfall patterns don’t change, maybe five if a new egalitarianism emerges, at least until the glaciers in the Himalayas and the Andes are gone.
The first hot spots will be the Pak-Indo-Sino border when the nuclear armed neighbors try secure the diminishing Himalayan sources of their rivers, and the Levant as Turkey continues to dam the Jordan and Euphrates river headwaters, reducing Israel and Syria’s supplies. Syrian Sunnis will look to Iranian water, Israel to the Nile. There’s a reason the Pentagon has supplies and ordinance pre-positioned around the globe besides the war on “terrorism”.
The point is that first world and developing countries, some of them nuclear armed, will be facing slow (if they/we are lucky), or quick reductions in their food supplies, concerns about economic growth and “good jobs” will disappear from the agenda of leaders (or dictators) intent on preventing the collapse of their countries into scavenging mobs. Nothing focuses the mind of an industrial, well armed society like famine.
Third of Big Groundwater Basins in Distress
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4626
Airdog
There is hope…
RENEWABLES 2015
GLOBAL STATUS REPORT
http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GSR2015_KeyFindings_lowres.pdf
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
“Global Warming Has Stopped”? How to Fool People Using “Cherry-Picked” Climate Data
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
Paul C
You post a link to a denialist article that cherry picks a certain time frame.
A 10 year cooling cycle??? LOL.
What does that “cooling cycle” look like in the larger scheme of things?
I mean, how about the prior 100 years. Why is THAT absent?
Max-1 – It is only supposed to cover 10 years.
Stanford engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert U.S. to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2015/pr-50states-renewable-energy-060815.html
Some that silly list is misleading/sophomoric at the start, its should not have been published at the start. People should have had the sense/basic-understanding not to links to it as something “serious”. People should have the sense not to defend it.
The problem isn’t my “tone”.
“Exhibit E does make a desultory effort to actually address the sincere concerns along with some name callin:”
People making silly arguments often resort to “tone” as a defence.
That list of science being “wrong” is stupid. It’s not meant as a serious argument (that should be obvious). Yet you and others are treating as serious.
“Wattsupwiththat” isn’t a honest source either.
“However it is untrue. The most recent statement that 2014 was the hottest year ever was admitted to be within the margin of error and hence statistically meaningless to the actual scientific community, by definition.”
Oye!
It’s a basic premise of the climate charge argument that it’s -trends- that are meaningful, not single numbers mentioned in isolation.
So, no one who has any idea of what they are talking about should be using one number as “proof” of climate change.
The state regulated monopoly electricity utility constitutes the very General Welfare the Founders “established” in the essential Preamble, and was created for and persists for the benefit of all citizens.
Wealthy, “green” individuals who circumvent that regulated monopoly by selfishly going off the grid, in fact CHEAT the General Welfare. Without current radical liberal “lobbying” for incoherent “green” rebates and incentives, they would be in violation of regulation and law.
With regard to state regulated monopoly electricity utilities, the inmates have taken over the asylum. There is little or no science involved in the deployment of wind and solar generation or distributed generation. There is plenty of radical, even something approaching anarchist, dogma and lobbying, but very little science. The quantifiable benefit, after consideration of the positive and negative impacts of each method, will inexorably lead to superior technologies and reveal the insufficiency of the remainder. Wind and solar pale in comparison to other methods of generation in their net benefit. France is 70% nuclear and Japan at Fukushima was warned one year in advance that it needed to raise the elevation of it back-up diesel motors. Japan failed. The technology did not.
When “the sky is falling,” radical “green” lobbying is removed, state regulated monopoly electricity utilities have no competition. They enjoy “economies of scale” that competing distributed technologies can never achieve. Intuitively, huge trains deliver freight per-pound at a fraction of the cost of a diesel tractor-trailer. Responding to the “competition,” public utilities commissions will likely end “rebates” and “subsidies” and regulate “radicalism” out and “proven scientific efficiency” in; to the chagrin and detriment of “rooftoppers” with long term contracts. If the grid disappeared tomorrow, all of the administration, research, equipment, installation, maintenance, replacement and repair would be individualized and distributed to every house and business in the operating areas. “Electricians” will become as ubiquitous as plumbers. The wealthy “greenies” would be able to boast of being “off the grid,” but ratepayers and property owners collectively would have costs increase exponentially as was the case with the introduction of the cell phone and the extinction of the land line, after the telecom “Big Bang.” Then, phone bills were calculable on the fingers of one hand. Contemporarily the wireless bills have exceeded the stratosphere. The overall “bill” for electrical power will be daunting. The electronic aspect of the “poor” who are still on the grid won’t survive.
State regulated monopoly electricity utilities have a vested interest in using the most efficient method of generation. It’s called EPS. If solar farms weren’t environmentally destructive, didn’t damage the flora and fauna beneath them and were cost-effective, utilities would have used them, or been “regulated” to use them decades ago. The allegation that utilities eschew efficiency is absolutely preposterous except to the radical activist, “green” lobbyists who control the state governments and public utilities commissions (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn influence that sixties radical and ineligible imposter, Barry “Natural Born Citizen” Soetoro, to this day – and then there’s the admittedly radical and “green” Gov. “Moon Beam,” King Jerry Brown, who is “Browning California” through his failure to “serve” the people, as a subject of the sovereign, and prepare the state for inevitable and predicted droughts, as Japan failed to prepare for its inevitable and predicted tsunami).
This country should put science back in charge at electricity utilities and get radicalism out in order to efficiently operate a state regulated monopoly as General Welfare for the benefit of all the people not just the wealthy “green” radical few.
Finally and again anecdotally, the breakthrough, state-of-the-art, in-home electricity storage batteries are an “explosive” issue. No. Literally. There is a huge potential for explosion of those storage batteries. It may or may not be more explosive than in-home natural gas lines, but the potential should be acknowledged and addressed. I believe it was 119 degrees Fahrenheit in Palm Springs yesterday. I would have been packing my brand new Elon Musk, gigafactory, in-home, electricity storage battery with multiple bags of super-frozen ice, if I hadn’t already “got on ‘old paint’ and got the —- where I ain’t.” I mean a huge battery full of Kilovolts in a 119 degrees is a frightening concept.
Several indicators in this piece why lawyers do not make science, nor think as scientists. As best I can tell, the law is about winning and losing arguments and charges aka allegations.
First, let’s get the facts straight. Fenner does NOT “now believe” anything. He died in 2010, at age 95, and while he had beliefs then, he was in no way a competent climatologist and likely was demented in 2010 . He had been a microbiologist, for Pete’s sake.That he insisted on anything, and responded to a G7 statement “on Monday” is therefore quite remarkable.
Second, there is the old, entirely irresponsible plaint the large majority of “scientists” from esteemed institutions agree, blah blah blah. They might agree, but they are agreeing about FORECASTS, not facts. Forecasting may be science(data)-based, but in itself is not science, since there is no method of independent verification of results of experiments at the present point in time.
Talk to us about litigation, Mr. Turley; any litigation, mechanics and methods of litigating. judges and juries. But do stay away from science or alleged science, where you are without expertise. Hire an expert witness or two instead.