tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post5166423024730069184..comments2024-01-16T13:06:15.270-06:00Comments on Climate Change: The Next Generation: John Atcheson: We Are Writing the Epilogue to the World We KnewTenney Naumerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11843130378338023902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post-18915668864870882502012-09-01T14:48:23.095-05:002012-09-01T14:48:23.095-05:00PAGE 2 OF 2
Roberts places this level of carbon e...PAGE 2 OF 2<br /><br />Roberts places this level of carbon emissions reduction in context, as follows: <br /><br /><br />"Just to give you a sense of scale: The only thing that’s ever pushed emissions reductions above 1 percent a year is, in the words of the Stern Report, “recession or upheaval.” The total collapse of the USSR knocked 5 percent off its emissions. So 10 percent a year is like … well, it’s not like anything in the history of human civilization.<br /><br /><br />This, then, is the brutal logic of climate change: With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 degrees C. If we delay even a decade — waiting for better technology or a more amenable political situation or whatever — we will have no chance."<br /><br /><br />Given that most of the economies in the world today are in trouble, and the remedy they all seek is enhanced economic growth, how consistent is that with the level of carbon emissions required to maintain two degree temperature increase? To paraphrase Anderson, 'the developed nations need to exchange economic growth for planned austerity'.<br /><br /><br />I see absolutely no way the politicians would recommend reducing economic growth in the time frame of interest and adopting austerity. I see no way the fossil fuel resource owners (read, energy companies) would write off the 80% of the ~thirty trillion dollars of fossil fuel reserves (that are on their books) necessary to keep the CO2 emissions constrained, as McKibben said is required in a recent article. I see no way that most of the electorate would support the austerity and economic depression that would accompany this level of reduced fossil fuel use, or that most of the electorate would be willing to make the personal lifestyle sacrifices that huge intensive energy use reduction requires to achieve the desired emission rate reductions. It completely goes against historical trends; we have been increasing CO2 emissions for many decades, and presently are hovering about 5% annual global increase. Anderson's realistic assessment implies there is no credible way out of a climate catastrophe, other than the emergence of a miracle.<br /><br /> <br />I also have the uneasy feeling that the situation is even more dire than described above. The governing process is driven by nonlinear dynamics, where many of the drivers are part of positive feedback loops, and essentially all of these loops are synergistic in one direction only. In nonlinear dynamical systems, small changes in the spatial and temporal boundary conditions can result in large changes in the solution space. From what little I have read, the fully integrated models don't contain all the known phenomena, like the methane feedback, or many others I have seen mentioned. How can we forecast the magnitude of the changes if critical terms are omitted from the nonlinear models, and we know these omitted terms are only driving the results in one direction? Is even a one degree increase maintainable?<br /> <br />So, the predictions I have seen are, in my estimation, very conservative. Now, maybe the researchers are 'gun-shy' after years of assault from the 'denier' community, and are only willing to offer the most conservative and unassailable predictions. Or, maybe they and the government sponsors and the politicians are concerned about what would happen if the hard truth were to be released to the public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-579549341020421678.post-4044408536365377742012-09-01T14:45:00.244-05:002012-09-01T14:45:00.244-05:00PAGE 1 OF 2
I believe the situation is far worse ...PAGE 1 OF 2<br /><br />I believe the situation is far worse than you have depicted. When a significant amount of open water appeared in the Arctic, there was a 'sea change'. A number of positive feedback elements came into play that the presence of significant ice cover had kept in check. More solar absorption rather than reflection, increased temperature differential to drive stronger cyclones, increased transfer of mass, momentum, and energy across the atmosphere-ocean interface to energize the quiescent ocean, increased methane release, etc. It was as though Nature had pulled out all the stops to accelerate melting of the ice cap. This is nonlinear dynamics in operation, and means the past will be an extremely conservative predictor of the future. And, essentially all the feedbacks go in one direction only, so expecting the worst is actually the most realistic.<br /><br />Kevin Anderson, ex-Director of the Tyndall Centre, Britain's leading climate research institute, and presently a Professor at University of Manchester, wrote some recent papers and gave the following presentation <br /><br /> <br /><br />(http://137.205.102.156/Ms%20S%20J%20Pain/20111124/Kevin_Anderson_-_Flash_(Medium)_-_20111124_05.26.31PM.html) <br /><br /> <br /><br />laying out what needs to be done to possibly dodge the climate change bullet. David Roberts wrote a more readable two part series to summarize Anderson's main points <br /><br /> <br /><br />(http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/)<br /><br />(http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-12-08-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change-mitigation/).<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />The main thrust of the analysis is to identify the allowable temperature increases over pre-industrial values for life on Earth to survive with some semblance of where it is today, and then identify CO2 emission reductions required to maintain the temperature limits. Years ago, a temperature increase of four degrees C was considered a reasonable target to dodge the major climate change bullet. While there would still be serious impacts from such a substantial temperature increase, it was believed that such an increase could be maintained stably, and not lead to runaway temperature increases due to synergistic positive feedback loops.<br /><br /> <br /><br />In the first decade of this century, two degrees was considered a more reasonable target, as four degrees now appeared to lead to almost guaranteed runaway temperature increases from positive feedback loops. Science in the last few years has questioned whether two degrees can be maintained stably, and has shown that one degree is perhaps a better target to avoid serious consequences. We are now approaching one degree, and are already seeing some ominous consequences, as mentioned above in the Arctic.<br /><br />Diplomacy does not always keep pace with technology. Because international agreements are still fixated on the two degree target, Anderson looked at carbon emissions reductions required to limit the temperature increase to two degrees. He initially examined uniform global emission reductions, then later assigned different emission rate reductions to advanced countries and developing countries. He looked at emission reduction rates as a function of emission peak years; we stay on our present trajectory of emissions to year x, then reduce emissions thereafter. For example, if the peak year for CO2 emissions is 2020, then the world would have to reduce carbon emissions on the order of ten percent per year for decades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com