Compilation: CON JOB – Part 2: climateye’s 12 most essential takeaways from instalment one of the latest uber IPCC climate report, and criticisms of its many, soon to be catastrophically evident, underestimates

Contents (Click links to jump scroll.)

Part 1 – What is the IPCC and why are their reports so important?

Part 2 – climateye’s 12 essential takeaways

from the first instalment of the latest uber IPCC climate report, and criticisms of its many, soon to be catastrophically evident, underestimates

► Intro

► climateye’s 12 essential takeaways – Brief

► climateye’s 12 essential takeaways – Detailed

Part 3 – Problems with IPCC / reports / process, +2°C ‘danger threshold, carbon ‘budget’

Intro

In part 1 climateye explained what the IPCC is and why their epic climate reports are — for some good, but also some very unfortunate, reasons — so important / influential. Part 2 (below) details climateye’s 12 most essential takeaways from the first instalment (WG1) of the latest uber IPCC climate report (AR5, 2013/2014), and criticisms of its many, soon to be catastrophically evident, underestimates.

Warning

The bottom of this one is a looong way down. So for those of you who just want the quick hit, the first section is a short list with brief, smart ass critiques, each with a ‘more’ link to jump scroll to the corresponding detailed breakdowns (complete with videos and playlists) that follow.

climateye’s 12 Most Essential Takeaways – Brief

From part 1 of the 2013 / 2014 IPCC climate report (AR5, WG1)
[Referenced from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1 (WG1) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), Headline Statements, and Press Release, as well as selected articles / posts.]

1. Unequivocal confirmation that global ‘warming’ is in progress / humanity mostly to blame.

Expect more frequent and extreme weather events and changes in weather / precipitation patterns / increased contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and wet and dry seasons / frequency and duration of heat waves; stresses and compromise to global agriculture; threats to / changes in plant, animal, marine life; increased extinctions; much greater rise of sea level and acidification of the global ocean; continued Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice, permafrost, and global glacier melt / retreat. And all much faster and sooner than previous IPCC estimates. more

2. Current greenhouse gas concentrations are the highest in 800,000 years, and mean rates of increase over the past century are unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.

CO2 is cumulative. Doesn’t go away over the short term. And 15 to 40% of it persists for 1,000+ years. Concentrations — and their clear, present, accelerated impacts — can ONLY be levelled off (let alone, reduced) once emissions STOP / return to ZERO, because ANY further releases, even if at reduced amounts and rates, will continue to increase the total accumulation and worsen what are ALREADY drastic consequences. Now consider this: The projected *rate* of temperature change for THIS century is greater — and at least 10 times faster — than that of any extended global heating period over the past 65 million years, when somewhere between 75 and 95 per cent of all species alive at the time were rendered extinct. more

3. Temps will continue to rise no matter how much, or how soon, action is taken, and many future impacts are already unavoidable.

In addition to the cumulative concentrations issue mentioned above, Even if we could halt all GHG emissions this minute, a 30 to 40-year lag between their release and the lifetime of a major proportion of the CO2 they contain (the primary source of momentum based on the time it takes for that energy to force itself into the climate system / 90% oceans) would continue to heat up the planet for decades. AND any reduction from a future peak (if a ‘runaway’ tip was somehow avoided) would take hundreds of years. Compared to the climate we evolved in, our future well-being for centuries to millennia or more, let alone decades, is, no matter what, ALREADY assured to be at significantly greater and, in many places / ways, CATASTROPHIC, risk. more

4. We’re on the (conservative IPCC’s underestimated version of the) worst-case path RIGHT NOW, an increase of +2°C (since pre-1900) by around 2040, and +2.6ºC to +4.8ºC by 2100.

May not sound like much, but it *should*, you know, empty your bowels, because this rapid an increase of global average temperature is an APOCALYPTIC trajectory — the lives of BILLIONS (peoples and species) at risk or KILLED in the lead up / short-term, and the potential DECIMATION OF MOST LIFE ON EARTH over the only slightly longer term / decades. And +2ºC around 2040 (since pre-1900) is the optimistic version because ‘reality’, not cautious, conservative, consensus-based science or problematic computer models, will be an actual, increasingly disruptive, destructive, health and livelihood compromising, in many cases life-threatening, factor between now and then. more

5. For the first time, the IPCC endorses and details the (messed up) concept / +2°C (+3.6°F) frame of a ‘Global Carbon Budget’.

To characterize the situation in ‘budget’ terms, and based on the supposed, long-pervasive, incorrect, insane, political, arbitrarily chosen, profit and delay-motivated +2°C (+3.6°F) ‘danger threshold’ (far too high / would be catastrophic) is utter, crack-smoking Mayor of Toronto-level nonsense because (among other reasons) it ignores / miscommunicates the very nature of the climate crisis: its unpredictability! Given ALREADY present impacts and threats, there is, ALREADY, NO ‘budget’ because it can no longer be considered safe to emit greenhouse gases (and thereby further increase the atmospheric concentrations of CO2) in any amount AT ALL. Even if climate breakdown (disruption, destabilization) WAS a ‘budgetable’ phenomenon which, again, is insane, we’ve ALREADY broken the bank, we’re ALREADY WAY over, and ALREADY owe a massive, eye-balls deep carbon debt to our children that will threaten their ability to survive, let alone, thrive. more

6. Current rate of ocean acidification highest in 50 million years, and accelerating. (If only!)

So out of date that “highest rate in 50 million years” was omitted in the final version, a recent study now suggests that “highest rate in 300 million years” might be more accurate. But what’s a few HUNDRED MILLION YEARS between scientists? And did you know that 40% of phytoplankton, the base-life (food source and major oxygen supplier) for ALL life, has DIED OFF since 1950? more

7. Arctic sea ice melt ‘unprecedented’ in 1,450 years; Summer sea ice could be gone by 2050. (In conservative, underestimated Bizarro world, that is.)

That’s A LOT worse than the IPCC’s previous assessment of 2100, but any 6-year-old could surmise from the current data and 2012 super melt that it’s very probable there will be no Summer sea ice in the Arctic within a decade / any year now. This has ALREADY had a massive domino influence on the regulation of global weather patterns that are now more extreme / prolonged and will continue to trigger / set off further disruption. With the death spiral Arctic meltdown follows the CATASTROPHIC breakdown of the very, formerly stable, ALREADY out of energy balance, climate that made it possible for humanity to evolve / civilization to develop. more

8. Northern permafrost that stores vast sums of the (even more potent than thought) super greenhouse gas methane is “virtually certain” to experience substantial melt this century. (What a cute turn of phrase for the potential extermination of most life.)

The ALREADY accelerated escape of massive amounts of the powerful, heat trapping greenhouse gas, methane, buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and underwater ocean shelves, is of EMERGENCY, ‘LIFE OR EXTINCTION’-scale concern. (Yes, really!). Not included in any of their future scenario calculations, this omission alone renders many of the IPCC (and its supposed ‘carbon budget‘) conclusions to be dramatic underestimates. And a new study makes the argument that, at as little as +1.5ºC of global average surface temperature increase (since pre-industrial times / pre-1900 / we’re at +0.85ºC now / +1.5ºC anticipated before or around 2030), the release of large amounts of methane (as much as 100 billion tons — a lot — of carbon by 2100) could become (in ecoSanity’s words) a blow torch accelerator of rapid, unstoppable, irreversible (self-perpetuated / reinforced) heat feedback. Put another way, this would be ‘GAME OVER’ ON A HORRIFIC SCALE for most life, and would persist long beyond any relevant human time frame. more

9. Greenland ice sheet melt is “very likely” 6 times faster NOW than in the 1990s. (Holy crap!)

Thought to contain enough ice to increase sea levels by 23 feet (more than 7 metres) were it to all melt, in 2012, scientists were stunned to discover that, for the first time, thaw was detected over 97% of Greenland’s surface. more

10. Estimated sea level rise has been doubled to about 3 feet by 2100. (Keep trying.)

Yes, their last assessment (AR4, 2007) was THAT off base! But with numerous experts who fear it could rise by CATASTROPHIC METRES in that amount of time, the IPCC is still WAAAY ‘under’. more

11. Explanation of the recent, temporary, so-called “pause” or “slowdown” in surface heating.

Attributed to heat absorbed into the deep ocean, the impacts of volcanic activity, and solar stuff, exaggeration of this so-called “pause” / “slowdown” was the result of unfortunate wording, media mismanagement, and denier spin. In fact, new research just out argues that climate models may have underestimated global warming since 1997 by more than half! more

12. Last and, literally, least, for the first time ever, geoengineering is mentioned.

Final paragraph of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM, page 27). But there’s a little more about it in the Technical Summary (TS), and it’s expected to be a major topic in future instalments. Wrought with life-or-death, mass extinction(s)-scale (the potential of our own included) ethical, legal, geo-political, social (justice), economic complexity / implications, and considerable opportunity for nefarious government, corporate (profit, delay, inaction), military or rogue (national, scientific, individual) abuse / misuse, geo-e poses an epic dilemma. more

Yes, believe it or not, that was the short version!

For most of you, on to part 3. But for all the hawks, wonks and nerds like me, downward for more detail and ‘attitude’, if you dare. FYI, each takeaway contains 3 categories:

Conservative IPCC — quotes, summaries;
climateye — corroboration and / or summaries of much more dire evidence that isn’t reflected in the consensus-limited IPCC report(s) / conclusions;
More – essential links to additional material.

climateye’s Most Essential Takeaways – Detailed

1. Unequivocal confirmation that global ‘warming’ is in progress / humanity mostly to blame.

Conservative IPCC

“Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.” (Headlines, page 1)

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.” (SPM, page 2)

“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years.” (SPM, page 3)

“The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C, based on the single longest dataset available.” (SPM, page 3)

“Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium.” (SPM, page 3)

“Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. (SPM, page 15)

climateye

95% certainty / “extremely likely” (the scientific ‘gold standard’) that human influence — greenhouse gas emissions from the burned fossil fuels, the impacts of deforestation, etc. — “has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (SPM, page 2.) Up from 90% in AR4 2007, 65% in TAR 2001, 50% in SAR 1995.

Summarized from various throughout the SPM:

More

2. Current greenhouse gas concentrations highest in 800,000 years, and mean rates of increase over the past century unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.

Conservative IPCC

“The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.” (SPM, page 9)

“Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very high confidence, unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.” (SPM, page 9)

“Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.” (SPM, pg 25)

“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years.” (SPM, page 26)

climateye

Pre-industrial (pre-1900) greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm (parts per million). Now they’re around 400 ppm, an amount the latest IPCC report says is the highest in 800,000 years. But some studies argue they might be at their highest levels in 1 million, 3 million, 15 million, or even 25 million, years.

Meanwhile, 350 ppm (which was surpassed around 1990) is the upper boundary you most often hear is required to restore our current, ALREADY out of energy balance world to the more stable climate that enabled humanity to evolve / civilization to develop. And some leading climatologists think the *real* limit is probably much less than 350 ppm, perhaps even as low as 300 ppm. Yet the rate of increase continues to ACCELERATE.

Was 280. Now 400-ish and rising FAST. Needs to be 300-350. BUT…

As explained in this brief video (also embedded above), CO2 is cumulative. Doesn’t go away over the short term. And 15 to 40% of it persists for 1,000+ years (see more in takeaway #3). Concentrations — and their clear, present, accelerated impacts — can ONLY be levelled off (let alone, reduced) once emissions STOP / return to ZERO, because ANY further releases, even if at reduced amounts and rates, will continue to increase the total accumulation and worsen what are ALREADY drastic consequences.

Excerpt from: Warsaw (climate) talks ignore IPCC ‘carbon budget’ approach, A. Freedman, CC

“By framing the issue in terms of a carbon budget based around cumulative emissions, the IPCC’s most recent report showed that it doesn’t necessarily matter what short-term emissions reduction targets are adopted, or which country cuts emissions by a particular amount relative to another nation’s pledges. Instead, what’s important is the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) — since a single molecule of CO2 can linger in the atmosphere for as long as 1,000 years — emitted since the dawn of the industrial era.

That framing, however, put the IPCC starkly at odds with the history of global climate negotiations, which have instead focused on near-term emissions reduction targets without agreeing to a long-term emissions goal. Instead, global leaders have agreed to limit warming to, or below, 3.6°F (2°C) relative to preindustrial levels, without specifying how much emissions can take place or how high CO2 levels can go…rather like guys in a pub arguing about whose round it is while never actually having to settle up the bill.“

Now consider this: The projected rate of temperature change for THIS century is greater — and at least 10 times faster — than that of any extended global heating period over the past 65 million years, when somewhere between 75 and 95 per cent of all species alive at the time were rendered extinct.

RIGHT NOW, we are in the midst — and primary cause — of the 6th great mass extinction event. 150-200 species die-off every 24 hours, up to 140,000 per year, which is at least 1,000, maybe even 10,000, times the average background rate.

More

3. Temps will continue to rise no matter how much, or how soon, action is taken, and many future impacts are already unavoidable.

Conservative IPCC

“Co-Chair Thomas Stocker concluded: “As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of CO2, we are committed to climate change, and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.” (Press Release, page 2)

“Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.” (SPM, pg 25)

“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years.” (SPM, page 26)

“Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.” (Headlines, page 2)

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” (Headlines, page 2)

climateye

To briefly reiterate an important point from takeaway #2 and as, again, is explained in this brief video (also embedded above), CO2 is cumulative. Doesn’t go away over the short term. And 15 to 40% of it persists for 1,000+ years. Concentrations — and their clear, present, accelerated impacts — can ONLY be levelled off (let alone, reduced) once emissions STOP / return to ZERO, because ANY further releases, even if at reduced amounts and rates, will continue to increase the total accumulation and worsen what are ALREADY drastic consequences.

Even if we could halt all GHG emissions this minute, a 30 to 40-year lag between their release and the lifetime of a major proportion of the CO2 they contain (the primary source of momentum based on the time it takes for that energy to force itself into the climate system / 90% oceans) would continue to heat up the planet for decades AND any reduction from a future peak (if a ‘runaway’ tip was somehow avoided) would take hundreds of years.

Compared to the climate we evolved in, our future well-being for centuries to millennia or more, let alone decades, is, no matter what, ALREADY assured to be at significantly greater and, in many places / ways, CATASTROPHIC, risk.

More

4. We’re on the (conservative IPCC’s underestimated version of the) worst-case path RIGHT NOW, an increase of +2°C (since pre-1900) by around 2040, and +2.6ºC to +4.8ºC by 2100

Conservative IPCC

“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C (or 3.6°F since pre-industrial times, the limit that countries have set as their target in the climate talks) to avoid the worst impacts of warming for the two high scenarios,” said Co-Chair Thomas Stocker (Press Release, page 1).

climateye

Current CO2 emissions levels are at the top of the (very conservative, underestimated) worst-case, business-as-usual projection, which is called RCP8.5, and is one of 4 examined potential scenarios. It estimates a range from +2.6°C to +4.8°C of warming (heating) since pre-industrial times (pre-1900) by 2100.

The biggest, most immediate and urgent impacts of the climate crisis EMERGENCY are the threats it ALREADY poses to fresh water availability / quality, food / agriculture production / supply / security and multi-regional insecurity / instability (as a threat multiplier) because these lead to — and increase the likelihood of — the entire range of undesired consequences like famine, disease proliferation, conflict, resource wars, failed states (the number of countries at high risk of disintegration has doubled from 7 to 15 since 2005), mass migration / die-offs / biodiversity loss / extinctions.

Some perspective by degrees

The neighborhood of +6ºC global mean average temperature increase beyond pre-industrial (1900) levels is considered unlivable for most life.

Multiple high profile, traditionally conservative entities (The World Bank, International Energy Agency, Price Waterhouse Coopers, The Royal Society, Met Office, United Nations Environment Programme — view all the reports in climateye’s compilation here) have warned that, on our current, ‘business as usual’ emissions path, +4ºC or more (not a range of +2.6ºC to +4.8ºC) by 2100 would be almost certain, AND some anticipate the vicinity of +4ºC to be very plausible as soon as 2055 or the 2060s. This possibility has been described as not only catastrophic, but incompatible with organized civilization to the point that as little as 10% of humanity could survive. And not pleasantly. And not for long because +4ºC soon leads to +5ºC, then +6ºC. Some studies postulate even higher increases of up to +8ºC by 2100.

A rise of +3ºC would assure the collapse of agriculture worldwide. In vulnerable climates like Africa and Asia, this tip would begin at +1ºC and occur through the lead up to +2ºC (billions hungry or starved to death).

At +1.5ºC, vast stores of the super-charged greenhouse gas methane (86-100 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year time horizon) frozen in northern permafrost and seabeds could destabilize (melt) and rapidly accelerate the increase of global temperatures. (See Compilation: Arctic meltdown / methane time bomb.)

In this 2009 article, Perfect storm of environmental and economic collapse closer than you think, Jonathon Porritt warned that a confluence of factors are anticipated to build over the next few years and mount into “world upheavals”, perhaps as soon as 2020.

Meanwhile, the clear, present, acceleration of dangerous impacts from our current +0.85ºC, ALREADY out of energy balance, world displaces millions / KILLS hundreds of thousands each year, and compromises the lives and livelihoods of billions RIGHT NOW.

More

5. For the first time, the IPCC endorses and details the (messed up) concept / +2°C (+3.6°F) frame of a ‘Global Carbon Budget’.

The video above summarizes the general idea. 4 inches down are reasons why it’s batshit false.

Conservative IPCC

“Limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone with a probability of >33%, >50%, and >66% to less than 2°C since the period 1861–1880, will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1570 GtC (5760 GtCO2), 0 and about 1210 GtC (4440 GtCO2), and 0 and about 1000 GtC (3670 GtCO2) since that period, respectively 23. These upper amounts are reduced to about 900 GtC (3300 GtCO2), 820 GtC (3010 GtCO2), and 790 GtC (2900 GtCO2), respectively, when accounting for non-CO2 forcings as in RCP2.6. An amount of 515 [445 to 585] GtC (1890 [1630 to 2150] GtCO2), was already emitted by 2011. (SPM, 25)

“A lower warming target, or a higher likelihood of remaining below a specific warming target, will require lower cumulative CO2 emissions. Accounting for warming effects of increases in non-CO2 greenhouse gases, reductions in aerosols, or the release of greenhouse gases from permafrost will also lower the cumulative CO2 emissions for a specific warming target.” (SPM, page 26)

climateye

Translation: According to the IPCC, about 1,000 gigatons (1 trillion metric tons) of carbon released into the atmosphere and ocean would result in a global average surface temperature increase of +2°C / +3.6°F since pre-industrial time (pre-1900), which is the upper limit that countries have set as their target in climate talks and is anticipated to occur by 2040 (or perhaps by 2036) unless dramatic action is taken to peak emissions by 2020 and ensure a rapid reduction thereafter.

With 515 GtC already emitted (range 445 – 586, or about 51 percent), just to have a mere 66 percent chance that the +2°C threshold (which is far too high) will not be overshot (based on the most dramatic / optimistic / unlikely examined RCP future emissions reduction scenario / pathway / projection), most fossil fuel reserves must not be burned.

But the previous IPCC report (AR4, 2007) stated that this peak in emissions would have to be achieved by 2015, not 2020. And the 2013 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) notes that the combination of multiple feedbacks (“non-CO2 forcings” like methane release from permafrost melt) will use up even more of this 1,000 GtC total ‘budget’ and that they are NOT accounted for in any of the RCP / future scenario projections.

The ALREADY accelerated escape of massive amounts of the powerful greenhouse gas, methane (a carbon molecule 82-100 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 20-year time horizon), buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and underwater ocean shelves, is of EMERGENCY, ‘LIFE OR EXTINCTION’-scale concern. (Yes, really!)

This omission alone renders many of the IPCC (and its supposed ‘carbon budget’) conclusions to be dramatic underestimates. And a new study makes the argument that, at as little as +1.5ºC of global average surface temperature increase (since pre-industrial times / pre-1900 / we’re at +0.85ºC now / +1.5ºC anticipated before or around 2030), the release of large amounts of methane (as much as 100 billion tons — a lot — of carbon by 2100) could become (in ecoSanity’s words) a blow torch accelerator of rapid, unstoppable, irreversible (self-perpetuated / reinforced) heat feedback. (See Compilation: Arctic meltdown / methane time bomb.)

In fact, NO climate models to date incorporate consideration of the various amplifying and inter-reinforcing Arctic feedbacks (loss of sea ice-albedo, warming northern peatlands, methane release from permafrost melt, methane clathrates from the melt of ocean floors, nitrous oxide feedback, soot), nor do they evaluate their combined impacts.

Back to the ‘budget’. The impacts of non-CO2 emissions brings the overall cumulative total down from 1 trillion tonnes of carbon (as CO2) to about 790 billion tonnes. If we, in theory, have ALREADY used (burned) 515, that leaves 275 from the supposed total of 1,000. Minus the methane thing and we’re left with, well…NUTH’N.

Not to mince words, to characterize the situation in ‘budget’ terms, and based on the supposed, long-pervasive, incorrect, insane, political, arbitrarily chosen, profit and delay-motivated +2°C (+3.6°F) ‘danger threshold’, is utter nonsense because:

the (messed up) ‘budget’ numbers themselves show that NO ‘budget’ remains;

atmospheric concentrations of CO2 — and their clear, present, accelerated impacts — are ALREADY far too high and can ONLY be levelled off (let alone, reduced) once emissions STOP / return to ZERO, because ANY further releases, even if at reduced amounts and rates, will continue to increase total concentrations and worsen what are ALREADY drastic consequences (the last time atmospheric CO2 concentrations were as high as they are now — around 400 ppmv / parts per million volume — sea levels became 5 to 25 metres higher);

+2ºC is far too high and would be CATASTROPHIC — the lives of billions (peoples and species) at risk or KILLED in the lead up / short-term, and the potential decimation of most life on Earth over the only slightly longer term / decades;

it ignores / miscommunicates the very nature of the climate crisis: its unpredictability!

Given the uncertain influence of feedback mechanisms / imminence of multiple tipping points (with 3 of 9 planetary boundaries already thought to have been passed); the risk of irreversible, ‘runaway‘ momentum and potential sudden, abrupt climate shifts; and the clear, present, acceleration of dangerous impacts (breakdown, disruption, destabilization) that are in advanced stages RIGHT NOW…

There is, ALREADY, NO ‘budget’ because it can no longer be considered safe to emit greenhouse gases (and thereby further increase the atmospheric concentrations of CO2) in any amount AT ALL. And even if climate breakdown (disruption, destabilization) WAS a ‘budgetable’ phenomenon which, again, is insane, we’ve ALREADY broken the bank, we’re ALREADY WAY over, and ALREADY owe a massive, eye-balls deep carbon debt to our children that will threaten their ability to survive, let alone, thrive.

With due respect to all involved, and the many incredible, devoted, well-intentioned folks who advocate around ‘climate math‘, Bill McKibben et al (as in the video above, informed by this 2009 study and, now, the 2013 / 2014 IPCC AR5 report), to interpret and communicate the predicament within a ‘budget’ frame, let alone with figures THIS flawed / underestimated, is just, pardon the slang, batshit false.

Quotes

“Two degrees (+2ºC) is not enough – we should be thinking of +1.5ºC. If we are not headed to +1.5ºC we are in big, big trouble.” … “The argument I am making is not about feasibility but an argument of social justice. We can’t have as our goal something that we already know does not guarantee the survival of low-lying states and sub-Saharan Africa. If we already know that, in my book there is no way we can stick to the goal we know is completely unacceptable to the most exposed [countries].” ~ UN Chief, Christina Figueres, challenges world to agree tougher target for climate change, Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, June 1, 2011

“…at today’s level of carbon dioxide, and not much above the current temperature, the world has experienced sea-levels 5 to 25 metres higher than at present! … It is hard to argue that anything above the Holocene maximum (of around +0.5ºC above the pre-industrial temperature) can preserve a safe climate, and that we have not already gone too far. The notion that +1.5ºC is a safe target is out the window, and even +1ºC looks like an unacceptably high risk.” ~ Re-thinking a “safe climate”: Have we already gone too far? David Spratt, Climate Code Red, interprets Hansen research, Jan. 23, 2011

And there’s that other pesky thing that, for some mysterious reason, never seems to get mentioned, but i’ll state for the record yet again: A major scientific update to the 2007 IPCC report that was conceived in the lead up to the Dec. 2009, COP15 Copenhagen climate summit — the Scientific Congress on Climate Change Synthesis Report (March, 2009) — concluded that (due to the 30-40-year latent heat lag in the climate system) an increase of +2ºC to +2.4ºC was already locked in (page 18). Since then, the situation has only worsened and accelerated.

By the way, after the release of part 1 of the latest IPCC report, one study suggested its numbers were overestimated by 25 per cent. Another, led by Dr. James Hansen, explains why +2ºC would be foolhardy, and that not more than +1ºC, or 50 per cent of the ‘budget’ proposed by the IPCC, is what is necessary to avert “disastrous” consequences.

More

6. Current rate of ocean acidification highest in 50 million years, and accelerating. (If only!)

Conservative IPCC

Statements below were quoted from the Summary for Policy Makers that was released Sept. 27, 2013, but it was pending final changes. The bolded sentences have since been removed from the final version.

“The pH of seawater has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era, corresponding to a 26% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. … It is virtually certain that the increased storage of carbon by the ocean will increase acidification in the future, continuing the observed trends of the past decades. … Estimates of future atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide concentrations indicate that, by the end of this century, the average surface ocean pH could be lower than it has been for more than 50 million years”. (SPM, page 10)

climateye

For most of history, life has existed only in the global ocean (only one, all connected), which makes up 99% of the living space on the planet. Every second breath we breathe comes from plankton. And if all land life were to die tomorrow, ocean life could survive, but if all ocean life were to die, land life — all of us — would also die.

“If the oceans go down, it’s game over… Every sea and ocean on our planet is part of one, global Ocean. This Ocean is like the earth’s circulatory system: it performs numerous vital functions which make the planet habitable and we cannot survive without it. Currently, the Ocean is in a critical state of health. If it continues to decline, it will reach a point where it can no longer function effectively and our planet will be unable to sustain the ecosystems that support humankind.” — Dr. Alex Rogers, StateoftheOcean.org, 2011

The present impacts of the ocean acidification process that has been set in motion are immense, accelerated threats RIGHT NOW, and the projected outcome of our current, carbon-intensive course is the potential collapse of ocean life within decades, because the water has become saturated and is no longer able to absorb our emissions at the level necessary to maintain and regulate the stable climate that enabled humanity to evolve / civilization to develop.

In 2009, it was reported that the pH balance (acidity) of the global ocean had become lower than it’s been for 65 MILLION YEARS, and that the protective shells of some ocean base life have ALREADY become compromised.

In 2011, a shocking study concluded that phytoplankton have ALREADY declined (died-off) by 40% since 1950 (most notable in the northern hemisphere) and continue to do so at an accelerated rate — about 1% per year(!) — because of the impacts of global heating,

Now, a 2013 report released after the IPCC submission cut-off date concludes that ocean acidification from carbon emissions is at its highest level in 300 MILLION YEARS, and that the rate of increase is, again, in acceleration.

The current, observed rate of acidification is 50 times faster(!) than the understood backround (historical) rate.

No known individual or combination of Hail Mary geoengineering methods addresses ocean acidification, or could save coral reefs, hotbeds of nurseries / habitat for 25-30% of all fish species / seafood / that evolved over millions of years / are relied upon for protein by 2.6 billion people and could be decimated by 2050.

So it should be of considerable alarm that the IPCC reports, upon which all international climate negotiations have been based and are limited to, did not even address this threat until this latest 2013 release.

More

Compilation: Ocean Acidification and the global climate EMERGENCY

7. Arctic sea ice melt ‘unprecedented’ in 1,450 years; Summer sea ice could be gone by 2050 (in conservative, underestimated Bizarro world, that is).

Conservative IPCC

“There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was unprecedented and sea surface temperatures were anomalously high in at least the last 1,450 years.” (SPM, page 7)

“Multiple lines of evidence support very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century.” (SPM, page 7)

“Based on an assessment of the subset of models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979‒ 2012 trend of the Arctic sea ice extent, a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is likely for RCP8.5 (medium confidence). A projection of when the Arctic might become nearly ice-free in September in the 21st century cannot be made with confidence for the other scenarios.” (SPM, page 23)

climateye

Global heating and climate disruption have ALREADY forced Arctic sea ice into a new state of ‘death spiral’ meltdown that is anticipated to disappear in Summer months within 10 years, many decades ahead of previous — and current — IPCC estimates.

This has ALREADY had domino effects.

The air conditioner of the northern hemisphere and a major global weather regulator, the Arctic has lost 80% of its volume, almost 50% of its long-term (1979 – 2000) average extent since 1979 (watch video) and rendered the jet stream much slower, wavier, weaker (watch video) / prone to cause more extreme / prolonged weather events (storms, floods, droughts, wildfires).

Of EMERGENCY, ‘life or extinction’-scale concern is the potential (already increased) escape of massive amounts of the powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gas, methane, buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and under water ocean shelves, which could very soon become an unstoppable blow torch accelerator of heat feedback. For more, scroll down to takeaway #8 below. (Compilation: Methane time bomb.)

But it looks like the Arctic meltdown is much more unprecedented than the IPCC suggests. This source explains that it hasn’t been ice-free for somewhere between 1,450 and 4,000 years, and before that, for about 120,000 years. And a new study concludes that the last time Arctic temps were this warm was at least 44,000 and, perhaps, as many as 120,000, years ago.

More about the influence of Arctic ice melt in the next 3 takeways: #8 (Methane), #9 (Greenland), #10 (Sea level rise).

More

Compilation – Arctic meltdown / methane time bomb and the global climate EMERGENCY

Conservative IPCC

“There is high confidence that permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s. Observed warming was up to 3°C in parts of Northern Alaska (early 1980s to mid-2000s) and up to 2°C in parts of the Russian European North (1971–2010). In the latter region, a considerable reduction in permafrost thickness and areal extent has been observed over the period 1975–2005 (medium confidence).” (SPM, page 7)

“It is virtually certain that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as global mean surface temperature increases. By the end of the 21st century, the area of permafrost near the surface (upper 3.5 m) is projected to decrease by between 37% (RCP2.6) to 81% (RCP8.5) for the model average (medium confidence).” (SPM, page 23)

“The release of CO2 or CH4 to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost carbon stocks over the 21st century is assessed to be in the range of 50 to 250 GtC for RCP8.5 (low confidence).” (SPM, page 25)

Joe Romm, Climate Progress: “…the IPCC’s latest…reports that methane is 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale, so its global-warming potential (GWP) is 34. That is a nearly 40% increase from the IPCC’s previous estimate of 25.” … “…over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72.” (AR5, WG1)

climateye

As mentioned in previous takeaways, the ALREADY accelerated escape of massive amounts of the powerful, heat trapping greenhouse gas, methane, buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and underwater ocean shelves, is of EMERGENCY, ‘LIFE OR EXTINCTION’-scale concern. (Yes, really!)

Not included in any of their future scenario calculations, this omission alone renders many of the IPCC (and its ‘carbon budget’) conclusions to be dramatic underestimates. And a new study has shown that, at as little as +1.5ºC of global average surface temperature increase (since pre-industrial times / pre-1900 / we’re at +0.85ºC now), the release of large amounts of methane — as much as 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100 — could become (in climateye’s words) a blow torch accelerator of rapid, unstoppable, irreversible (self-perpetuated / reinforced) heat feedback.

Put another way, this would be ‘GAME OVER’ ON A HORRIFIC SCALE for most life, and would persist long beyond any relevant human time frame. (Compilation: Methane time bomb.)

Quick facts

► Methane is a carbon molecule 86-100 times more potent as a global warming (heat-trapping) gas than CO2 over a 20-year time horizon. It remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years, over which time its heating impact is 100 times that of CO2, and only disappears as it is converted to other greenhouse gases (GHGs), the most notable, CO2.

► Permafrost contains TRILLIONS OF TONS of frozen carbon, at least twice as much as is in our entire atmosphere. This important 2013 study concludes that Siberian permafrost has a ‘thaw down’ tipping point of +1.5ºC (of heating since pre-industrial times, pre-1900), which means that a global climate not much warmer than today (+0.85ºC) appears to be sufficient to melt significant regions. And THAT makes East Siberian shelf sub-seafloor methane a massive, planetary catastrophe risk.

► Melt / destabilization ALREADY causes more and more methane to vent from its safe, frozen state every year.

► On our present course, and based on conservative estimates, an IRREVERSIBLE carbon tipping point could occur within 20 years (between 2020 and 2030).

► This could result in the release of at least 100 BILLION tons (a lot) of carbon by 2100, and two thirds of stored deposits by 2200.

► NO climate models to date incorporate consideration of the various amplifying and inter-reinforcing Arctic feedbacks (loss of sea ice-albedo, warming northern peatlands, methane release from permafrost melt, methane clathrates from the melt of ocean floors, nitrous oxide feedback, soot) nor do they evaluate their combined impacts.

► “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” (NSF Nat’l Science Foundation press release, March 2010.) In Earth’s history, sudden flips to a different, unstable global climate state of +2ºC to +4ºC have occurred over as brief as a 3-year period of time. And the known records are +6ºC over 1–3 years, and +10-12ºC over 50 years. (Steffensen, 2008)

► CO2 emissions are cumulative, which is BAD because, even if we could reduce them to zero this minute, inertia from the 30 to 40-year lag between the release of heat trapping gases and the lifetime of a major proportion of CO2 emissions (the primary source of inertia based on the time it takes for that energy to force itself into the climate system / 90% oceans) would continue to warm the planet. Global average temps would still rise for decades and any reduction from a future peak (if a runaway tip was somehow avoided) would take hundreds of years.

► International climate negotiations can’t even find agreement on inadequate emissions reduction targets based on flawed climate models (watch this short video) and dangerous, outdated science (another short video) that doesn’t include feedback loops, the main driver of the climate crisis, let alone the catastrophic threat of the Arctic feedbacks outlined above which, based on current negotiation parameters, are still not even under consideration. (Compilation: UN Climate Talks: Betrayal of Life.)

More

9. Greenland ice sheet melt is “very likely” 6 times faster NOW than in the 1990s. (Holy crap!)

Conservative IPCC

“The average rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has very likely substantially increased from 34 [–6 to 74] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 to 215 [157 to 274] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011.” (SPM, page 7)

climateye

With just a few more years of warming (heating) — or another +0.2°C in addition to the current estimated level of +0.85°C since pre-industrial times / pre-1900 — there’s a 20% chance that Greenland will be committed to long-term disappearance “over a millennium or more”.

Thought to contain enough ice to increase sea levels by 23 feet (7+ metres) were it to all melt, in 2012, scientists were stunned to discover that, for the first time, thaw was detected over 97% of Greenland’s surface.

More

Compilation: Greenland ice sheet melt and the global climate EMERGENCY

10. Estimated sea level rise has been doubled to about 3 feet by 2100. (Keep trying.)

Conservative IPCC

“As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years,” said Co-Chair Qin Dahe.” (Press Release, page 1)

“It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.” (SPM, page 9)

“it is very likely that there is a substantial anthropogenic contribution to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s. This is based on the high confidence in an anthropogenic influence on the two largest contributions to sea level rise, that is thermal expansion and glacier mass loss.” (SPM, page 17)

“Projections of sea level rise are larger than in the AR4, primarily because of improved modelling of land-ice contributions.” (SPM, page 18)

climateye

Doubled estimates? Yes, their last assessment (AR4, 2007) was THAT off base! But with numerous experts who fear that global average sea level could rise CATASTROPHIC METRES by 2100, and based on studies of the last geological era that saw atmospheric concentrations as high as they are RIGHT NOW and suggest we may have already assured TENS OF METRES of long-term rise, the IPCC is still WAY ‘under’ (at least 1-2 metres this century, as much as 27 metres long-term).

And like ocean acidification, sea level rise is another one of those epic threats to most life that no individual or combination of Hail Mary geoengineering methods could prevent.

Just last year the lead author of paleoclimate research funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) said, “The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.” And that was only slightly less worrisome than a 2009 paper in Science that found when CO2 levels were this high 15 million years ago, it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. – Post, Joe Romm, CP

“…at today’s level of carbon dioxide, and not much above the current temperature, the world has experienced sea-levels 5 to 25 metres higher than at present! … It is hard to argue that anything above the Holocene maximum (of around +0.5ºC above the pre-industrial temperature) can preserve a safe climate, and that we have not already gone too far. The notion that +1.5ºC is a safe target is out the window, and even +1ºC looks like an unacceptably high risk.” ~ Re-thinking a “safe climate”: Have we already gone too far? David Spratt, Climate Code Red, interprets Hansen research, Jan. 23, 2011

More

Compilation: Sea level rise, commitment, acceleration and the global climate EMERGENCY

11. Explanation of the recent, temporary, so-called “pause” or “slowdown” in surface heating.

Conservative IPCC

“Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).” (SPM, page 6.)

“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).” (SPM, page 3)

“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” (SPM, page 10)

“Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.” (SPM, page 15)

climateye

Appearance of a warming (heating) slowdown in surface temperature increase since 1998 is thought to be a temporary fluctuation explained by natural variability of systems that cause the majority of additional heat to be absorbed by / hidden in the deep ocean (where 90% of accumulated heat energy increase since 1970 has been stored).

“The report also dismisses the notion, spread by climate change deniers, that global warming has stopped. It has slowed slightly in recent years, scientists say, because of natural weather variations and other possible factors, including increases in volcanic ash, changes in solar cycles and, as a new scientific study suggests, oceans absorbing more heat.” (Source: DSF post)

This so-called “pause”/”slowdown” that has been attributed to the IPCC’s conclusions was exaggerated as a result of unfortunate wording, media mismanagement, and denier spin. See links below for details. And new research just out that argues climate models may have underestimated global warming since 1997 by more than half!

More

12. Last and, literally, least, for the first time ever, geoengineering is mentioned.

Conservative IPCC

“Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale.” (SPM, page 27)

climateye

That’s it. One (the final) paragraph of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). But there’s a little more about it in the Technical Summary (TS), and it’s expected to be a major topic in future instalments.

Geoengineering. Just like we’ve done through the burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years, and with reckless, accelerated, super(carbon)charged abandon for the past 50 years but, in the (perhaps very near) future, with different methods / technology / intent to:

mitigate the devastation already in progress RIGHT NOW / delay / limit future impacts, many of which can no longer be avoided;

stabilize the planet’s energy balance before multiple tipping points / feedback processes compound / cascade into a state of irreversible, runaway climate catastrophe beyond our capacity to contain (which, by the way, is our current, business-as-usual trajectory, predicted to occur within decades — 2040-ish — or sooner, and may already be assured given decades of hidden heat forcing energy released since the 1970s that has yet to present itself, and the risk of sudden / abrupt climate shifts — Compilation: Methane time bomb);

reverse course — drawdown / extract heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from the air — with the hope to some day, somehow, undo all the damage.

Wrought with life-or-death, mass extinction(s)-scale (the potential of our own included) ethical, legal, geo-political, social (justice), economic complexity / implications, and considerable opportunity for nefarious government, corporate (profit, delay, inaction), military or rogue (national, scientific, individual) abuse / misuse, geoengineering poses an epic dilemma.

And no individual or combination of methods would be a silver bullet:

It could NOT address ocean acidification (at the highest levels and fastest rate of increase in 300 million years!) or save coral reefs, hotbeds of nurseries / habitat for 25-30% of all fish species / seafood / that evolved over millions of years / are relied upon for protein by 2.6 billion people and could be decimated by 2050;

It could NOT prevent a large amount of future sea level rise (at least 1-2 metres this century, as much as 27 metres long-term);

It is NOT an alternative to the necessity for an emergency energy revolution / transition / transformation from our heavily subsidized, fossil fuel-based global economy to one powered by everlasting (non-burning), ‘zero carbon‘ sources (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.);

There’s also one other pretty big ‘hiccup’. From, Beyond the carbon price, a Faustian bargain, David Spratt, Climate Code Red, based on Dr. James Hansen’s research in the 2011 report, Earth’s energy imbalance and implications:

“Human activity modifies the impact of the greenhouse effect by the release of airborne particulate pollutants known as aerosols. These include black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates, nitrates, as well as dust from smoke, manufacturing, wind storms, and other sources. Aerosols have a net cooling effect because they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground and they increase cloud cover. This is popularly known as “global dimming”, because the overall aerosol impact is to mask some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol “dimming” at 1.2ºC degrees (plus or minus 0.2ºC), much higher than previously figured. Aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere by rain on average every 10 days, so their cooling effect is only maintained because of continuing human pollution, the principal source of which is the burning of fossil fuels, which also cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming that lasts for many centuries.

So on the one hand, we desperately need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero, and quickly. Emissions need to fall off a cliff… On the other hand, rapid and deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions (and emissions from burning cleared vegetation from rainforest destruction) will cut the aerosols and their temporary cooling. If all aerosols were removed from the system, about half the 1.2ºC of lost cooling would appear very quickly as a pulse of warming, with the other half following over a few decades.

And that is the Faustian bargain. If we keep burning fossil fuels the way we are, the planet will head towards four degrees of warming by century’s end, and a carrying capacity of less than a billion people. And if we cut emissions rapidly, we lose aerosol cooling and get a pulse of warming that creates very dangerous conditions.”

Dilly of a pickle, eh?

After years of consideration, and with conflicted trepidation, here’s where climateye comes down on this surreal, *almost* unfathomable, predicament:

As the IPCC itself makes clear, a large proportion of ALREADY released global heating gases will remain in the atmosphere for a long time (15 to 40% of it persists for 1,000+ years) and our future well-being for centuries to millennia or more, let alone decades, is, no matter what, ALREADY assured to be at significantly greater and, in many places / ways, catastrophic, risk.

There’s that 30 to 40-year latent heat lag in the climate system, most of which (90%) is absorbed by the global ocean(s), which means the last few, super(carbon)charged decades of added heat energy from burned fossil fuels hasn’t even presented itself yet.

Of EMERGENCY, ‘life or extinction’-scale concern are the domino effects of Arctic meltdown that have ALREADY rendered the jet stream much slower, wavier, weaker (watch video) / prone to cause more extreme / prolonged weather events (storms, floods, droughts, wildfires), and threaten the potential, ALREADY increased escape of massive amounts of the powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gas, methane, buried in the frozen permafrost of northern Canada, Siberia and under water ocean shelves, which could very soon become an unstoppable blow torch accelerator of heat feedback. (Compilation: Methane time bomb.)

And despite all of this, political action is nowhere in sight. (Compilation: Betrayal of life.)

Given that:

atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (and their clear, present, accelerated impacts) are ALREADY far too high and can ONLY be reduced once emissions STOP / return to ZERO, because ANY further emissions, even if at reduced amounts and rates, will continue to increase total concentrations (and worsen what are ALREADY devastating consequences);

the DIRE EMERGENCY of the climate (energy / population / democracy / justice) crisis and the severe impacts ALREADY observed / suffered by the most vulnerable / least culpable peoples and species requires a rapid return to a less than +0.85-degree Celsius (our current, already out of energy balance) world, if we are to attempt to restore the more stable climate that enabled humanity to evolve / civilization to ‘develop’;

within mere decades, the epic forces that have been set in motion are predicted to result in intolerable, if not uninhabitable, chaos and ruin EVERYWHERE;

there is — not now, not ever — NO known way to reduce / reverse the current amount of heat trapping greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere without geoengineering; NO other way to restore energy balance to the climate — which includes options like reforestation and other current or future potential methods to somehow remove / drawdown GHGs from the air…

without geoengineering, how else can we attempt to ensure any reasonable chance that most life will survive? How much longer can we afford to wait before a cascade of multiple tipping points sends us into a runaway scenario beyond which no action can counter the heat forcing and abrupt climate shifting (breakdown, disruption, destabilization) momentum we’ve ALREADY set in motion? And when is / was / will it be … too late?

Excerpt from: Time to prepare for the one degree war, Paul Gilding

“Amidst the noise of the day-to-day debates, we have lost sight of the simple logic of the advice coming from the world’s top climate scientists. Despite the uncertainties in the details, the science carries one underlying message from which we can draw only one rational conclusion. It is time to declare a global emergency and mobilise all available resources, political will and human ingenuity towards one task – to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change to an acceptable level.“

Excerpt from: Serious talk about geoengineering better than pious hand-wringing about +2ºC, David Spratt, Climate Code Red

(Quoting Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) “There is a widespread view that a +4°C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of eco-systems and has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. +4ºC would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level).”

David Spratt: “If the Arctic sea-ice goes in a few years and events unfurl as (Professor Peter) Wadhams and the peer-reviewed science suggests, 4 degrees will be difficult to avoid, to put it politely. Then it will be too late to talk about geo-engineering, and the billion or so people left on a hot planet will be wishing like crazy we had taken the idea more seriously. Not because it’s win-win, but because our collective stupidity over the last two decades now makes it the least-worst option.“

Deus ex machina

If this were a movie, it would be difficult to foresee how the ‘heroes’ (most life on Earth) could survive such daunting obstacles without a deus ex machina — an act of God or some unforeseen game changer, usually out of the blue with no basis for expectation.

The use of this plot device is considered poor writing because it indicates that the author was painted into a corner with no reasonable escape plan and, therefore, could not come up with a believable resolution.

This is where we are RIGHT NOW: painted into a soon to be catastrophic corner, and ALREADY beyond the point of reasonable options to ensure our survival.

Like it or not (and I, for one, very much don’t, but the laws of physics simply do not negotiate), EMERGENCY, least-worst alternatives must be contemplated and acted upon on a massive scale — FAST.

More

CON JOB: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3