"Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the paper, said it underscored the urgency for action to curb the effects of climate change ..."
Action by who? Not by government, which through its bumbling ineptitude can only make matters worse by whatever action it might take to address human-induced climate change. Look at what's happening in California, the state where a governor who used to be known as Moonbeam has taken more active steps (viz., enforced fiats) than any other state in the Union. As a result: Camp Fire and many more: "The 2018 wildfire season is the most destructive on record in California, with a total of 7,579 fires burning an area of 1,667,855 acres (674,957 ha), the largest amount of burned acreage recorded in a fire season, according to the California Department of Forestry..." Wikipedia
Environmentalists who look to the state to protect the environment from whatever are like the three not-so-wise monkeys who can see no evil, hear no evil and will speak no evil when it comes to government. They forget the fact that from time immemorial governments have been the greatest polluters of the environment. Tasking government to fix the weather or address climate change is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house.
What department of government should be put in charge of the climate? Will it be the White House under Donald Trump? How about the Pentagon. USPS? Amtrak? Gimme a break.
2
Hang in there as the next Ice Age is on the way!
1
Years ago, a colleague that was a corporate biologist said that when she was working the standard was “the solution to pollution is dilution.” We now know that is short-sighted. I think the situation now is that the balloon payment on our ecosystem loan is coming due. Since the Industrial Revolution nearly everything requires burning at some stage. It is really tough to change but the science and the alternatives are out there. It will cost money but looks forward. The recent NYT article on Yellowstone was particularly worrying. We need to really get going.
9
This wise warning is supported by Bill McKibben: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-extreme-weather-is-shrinking-the-planet
"How Extreme Weather Is Shrinking the Planet: With wildfires, heat waves, and rising sea levels, large tracts of the earth are at risk of becoming uninhabitable. But the fossil-fuel industry continues its assault on the facts."
There is plentiful data and varied evidence of the trends that fake skeptics announce are false. (Scientists are the true skeptics, with open minds and methods that gave you all your mod cons, including these computers.)
Extract: "some of the world is becoming too hot for humans. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, increased heat and humidity have reduced the amount of work people can do outdoors by ten per cent, a figure that is predicted to double by 2050. About a decade ago, Australian and American researchers, setting out to determine the highest survivable so-called “wet-bulb” temperature, concluded that when temperatures passed 35C (95F) and the humidity was higher than 90%, even in “well-ventilated shaded conditions,” sweating slows down, and humans can survive only “for a few hours, the exact length of time being determined by individual physiology.”"
"a crescent-shaped area encompassing parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the North China Plain, where about 1.5 billion people (a fifth of humanity) live, is at high risk of such temperatures in the next half century."
8
One important message in the article, which is kind of obliterated by the messaging in the headline, is the conditions at the end of this century depend to a great extend on how quickly we continue transformations that are already under way.
When Carter put those panels on the White House, the technology was not up to the job of powering a nation. The early wind farms in California were a good idea, but a very early iteration. As little as 5 years ago, critics were claiming that no part of the grid could work with the fluctuating input of wind or solar making up 20% of power.
Wind now provides over 37% of the electricity supply in Iowa (up from 1% eighteen years ago), 36% of power in Kansas. Texas is a huge wind power state, and is looking to connect to the east so they can sell power there.
Germany was an early leader in reducing emissions, and their annual CO2 emissions are lower than since before 1965 - and they're still not living in caves, and still the third biggest manufacturer.
People in many states here can choose where their power is generated - so they can (and should) encourage production from wind, solar, nuclear, anything that doesn't burn.
And electric cars, already far cheaper to maintain than far more complicated internal combustion vehicles, are increasingly cost competitive directly, as battery costs drop year after year.
So change your habits, waste less, walk more, buy electric, buy it from clean sources, tell your officials to work on change.
10
I've been reading science fiction since I was 10. Increasingly, we are living in a dystopian world that combines the best and the worst ideas and scenarios that I've read about for so long.
I tell people, "we're the minor characters who get killed off in Chapter 3 of a Stephen King novel."
Fortunately, I don't have children, so all the horrific possible events will not affect my offspring. But I suspect that not only our civilization, but humanity itself, will cease to exist.
To misquote someone, "I for one welcome our new cockroach overlords."
4
Everyone talks a good game on climate change while using their mobile phone,using their pc/tablet, driving their car, flying on planes, using electricity at home, eating & drinking.... It's always good for "others" to cut back on..... Just talking points for politicians that nobody in any leadership position really cares about.... Just about mass manipulation of the public.
4
It is worth noting that global warming is one of many challenges that humanity will face this century.
https://80000hours.org/articles/extinction-risk/
2
@mackeral - one way I see it is that getting away from fossil fuels provides so many benefits based on reducing pollution that we should be hurrying the process even if fossil fuel use didn't also affect weather and change the ocean's chemistry.
4
With 48.5 milion travelers hitting the road or flying long distances this Thanksgiving, one would never guess there is a climate crisis. It breaks my heart to realize how much more work we have to do to convince people that climate change is real. I am not suggesting we all stay home, separate families and become hermits. But I am asking us to consider changing our attitudes, minds, and implement easy-to-do "reduce, reuse, recycle" habits. What prevents us from changing our wasteful habits? What encourages us to focus on the monetary benefits of oil, gas, fracking and drilling jobs? Why do we ignore the scientific data and reports such as the recent IPCC warnings? Why are we allowing the destruction of wilderness, rainforest, and habitats? We must change attitudes, mindsets, we must take ourselves seriously if we want to pass on a healthy planet to future generations. In my Thanksgiving prayer, I am unafraid to say God; I am unafraid to ask Him to help us change our hearts, our minds, and our lifestyles in order to walk gently on his beautiful creation.
3
Read the books Bannerless and Wild Dead by Carrie Vaughn. She has already written novels based on this idea.
Any questions on global warming surface air temperature trends are clearly outlined in the link below. It has links to all the data and methodologies for checking and verifying the data.
The US is warming faster than the globe and the warming accelerated after 1980…yea, we’re number one.
“12. Statistical/Trend Analysis
This indicator uses ordinary least-squares regression to calculate the slope of the observed trends in temperature. A simple t-test indicates that the following observed trends are significant at the 95-percent confidence level:
• Contiguous 48 states temperature, 1901–2015: +0.014 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Contiguous 48 states temperature, 1979–2015, surface: +0.046 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Contiguous 48 states temperature, 1979–2015, UAH satellite method: +0.041 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Contiguous 48 states temperature, 1979–2015, RSS satellite method: +0.029 °F/year (p = 0.005)
• Global temperature, 1901–2015: +0.015 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Global temperature, 1979–2015, surface: +0.028 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Global temperature, 1979–2015, UAH satellite method: +0.026 °F/year (p < 0.001)
• Global temperature, 1979–2015, RSS satellite method: +0.022 °F/year (p < 0.001)”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/temperature_documentation.pdf
Considering that the world only warmed about 0.001 degF per year exiting the last ice age, the 0.026 Deg F per year the planet is experiencing now is really fast—about 20 times faster.
5
@Glennmr Good. I hope you won't waste too much time responding to the likes of Ralphie, an unrepentant and dishonest sometimes clever but nasty, advocate for the market that he helped inflate. One or two for the possible lurker is all that is needed.
1
@Susan Anderson
People that are serious about analyzing global warming should actually look at the big five:
1. Sea Level: sea levels rise when the planet is warming and the levels have accelerated in the last 20 years to about 3 mm/yr from about 1.5 mm/yr. Huge heat needed to raise sea levels due to thermal expansion and ice melting and a proxy for warming…if it doesn’t stop the planet is warming.
2. Sea temperatures are increasing. The energy required is huge to raise ocean temps. The fact that ocean temps are rising very fast shows energy being trapped.
3. Surface air temps. Increasing along climate model projections. Only 3% of the heat balance however…so much more volatile.
4. Ocean acidification (less alkaline)…bizarrely occurring and fast.
5. Global sea ice and Glaciers melting. Proxy for planet warming and over 90% are retreating on the planet. Global sea ice. Shrinking very fast…faster than projections and likely to be the first to the finish line.
2
Getting off fossil fuels, yes, and also regenerative agriculture which sequesters carbon in the soil, and.......... making birth control available to every woman on the planet. We can halt this and we can create a livable planet for all, including non-human species. What we lack is the will to do so.
7
Dear Mr. Schwartz,
Thank you for another educational article regarding Climate Change. Global Warming catastrophes dominate the media, focusing attention on this issue as never before; most people have realized it is time to act, but feel powerless to be effective.
Would you please report on Climate Solutions?
In particular existing, or proposed, National and Global policies that would resolve this crisis e.g. Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL). CCL is asking Congress to put a price on greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution with a Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend that rapidly reduces GHG emissions to the 350 ppm goal. Sadly, most individuals have never heard of this important policy.
Since 2007 CCL's goal is to create a Climate Solution. Their single goal is to ask Congress to place a price on carbon with a Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD). This is a market-based Climate Solution that Conservatives favor with economic benefits that appeal to Progressives; it is politically attractive to all Members of Congress.
The CFD is the most effective Climate Solution available, witness Canada's British Columbia CFD economy. It will improve the regional and national economy, family incomes, our health, and the security and safety of our country and the world. The CFD is a win-win-win.
Nearly ALL of the Members of Congress are eager to create a Climate Solution, but they need us to ask for a CFD.
Thank you for educating your readers about Climate Solutions.
5
The US involvement in Vietnam was greatly impacted by public protests, largely because young lives were threatened by the draft. These same Vietnam protesters now cannot be bothered with Cimate Change, because the most significant (and almost unimaginable) results will occur long after their departure.
But young adults today will be forced to adapt and cope with a changing and toxic world. NOW is the time to stop ignoring reality, and to challenge deniers whenever they choose to spread their happy lies. Understand that the human cost increases as we doubt established science, and the ever increasing price will be paid by today’s youth.
Take to the streets.
8
People like to blame government and politics for this predicament but really, we all have the power to stop driving our cars, stop using the AC, stop flying in airplanes, stop consuming things, especially food, that have been shipped 1000's of miles, and stop eating meat. All these things can be done today, without government needing to pass laws or sign a treaty, so why isn't it happening?
My assumption is that people talk about wanting to reverse climate change but when the rubber meets the road, nobody is truly willing to do what is necessary. The UN IPCC report that was released this year said we have about 12 years to reduce carbon emissions by about half! That is unlikely to happen since carbon emissions are still increasing.
I just cannot see much hope that we can escape this situation unscathed. We really are our own worst enemy.
7
It's a classic "Pay me now or pay me later" situation. Stopping climate change is going to be extremely difficult, rather like a tugboat trying to stop a 300 meter long oil tanker that going full speed. But first we have to shut down the Tanker's engine. A huge majority of the world's population has to buy in to the need to reduce carbon emissions or we are not going to be able to even slow down the process. The time scale of this problem is decades long and most of us will not live to see the fruits of our sacrifice. The incentive to reduce our carbon footprint is not for ourselves, but for our descendents. How many people will agree to make that kind of commitment for no measurable benefit to themselves?
2
desensitize
[dee-sen-si-tahyz]
verb (used with object), de·sen·si·tized, de·sen·si·tiz·ing.
1. to lessen the sensitiveness of.
2. to make indifferent, unaware, or the like, in feeling.
The constant predictions of catastrophic doom and gloom over the preceding bunch of decades has had the undesirable effect of desensitizing a sizable number to any urgency of actual doom.
The skeptical, who never really saw an ever-increasing population generating an ever-increasing ‘carbon footprint’ developing and integrating energy saving innovations and refinements quickly enough to arrest the footprint’s growth let alone get ahead of the game anyway, especially.
Humans will adapt. Warming is better than cooling.
@Mr Blevins
Excess warming or cooling is bad for animals and plants who have evolved in very temperate conditions. Add to it the speed of the change (decades instead of millions of years) and the result is extinction.
10
@Mr Blevins
Lobsters would disagree...they are moving north.
Stability is better than warming or cooling...and stability has been lost.
6
Right. I did not need scientists to tell me that. I have figured out myself that this is what's likely to happen. So why are we so slow to take massive action to mitigate these threats when common sense would dictate no delay?
3
When Ron Reagan said government is the problem, maybe he is right in a perverse sense. A succession of GOP led government, be it the White House or Congress, has gotten America to this stage. They made the Detroit River catching fire in the 70s a child play. So, yes, government can be a problem, folks, so pick your government carefully, for your lives depend on it
7
I think it’s important to make the distinction between government and politicians. A lot of the science on climate has come from government scientists and agencies. Recovery and mitigation plans are often developed or paid for by government. Politicians who take money from polluters, the fossil fuel companies or other vested interests protect those interests.
5
The river that caught fire was the Cayuhoga, running through Cleveland. The Detroit River is where the GOP made Flint get the water that ruined the pipes that poisoned the kids.
Reagan said air pollution is caused by trees.
Not that the details matter all that much, as one way or another we are in the path of climate apocalypse avalanche.
1
I think the most disappointing aspect to me is that there is no significant chance for us to avoid this disaster. Not that we lack the financial ability or scientific knowledge, for a few percent of GDP. But rather that we lack the societal intellect and political capital to ensure an adequate national let alone worldwide response. I honestly foresee a slow apocalypse ( someone else's term but cannot remember who to attribute it to) I foresee a world where fortress North American and Fortress Russia with a few other northern tier countries have a survivable but chaotic lifestyle with a lower standard of living while other countries devolve and struggle to provide basic nutrition and clean water. Forget well intentioned books about deep economies and writing off the sunk cost of industrial infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. My fear is that by the time the masses in the developed world are willing to do "anything" of significant cost to address climate change, the worldwide political stability and organizations will be even more fractured and broken. And what we need to sustain a decent standard of living for the majority of humanity is contingent on those organizations or international cooperation, wealth and tech transfer. I honestly don't foresee any way to turn the ship before we begin to see even more positive feedback cycles kicking in, decreasing the resources and capital available for the systemic, worldwide societal changes and infrastructure development needed
11
The sole reason that humanity, and specifically the United States, has essentially undertaken no action on climate change (carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise into the future) is because we live in dictatorship (or more accurately oligarchy). At the political center of this oligarchy is the absolute commitment to 1.) neoliberalism (the free global movement of capital, goods, and service) and 2.) American empire. American empire is based on the control of fossil fuels (e.g., the Persian Gulf) -- thereby giving the ability to the U.S. state to dictate policies (neoliberalism) worldwide. As a result, the U.S. state is hostile to solar, wind energy -- a successful transition to such energy sources would render American dominance of fossil fuels politically mute.
10
@John We don’t live under a dictatorship. We haven’t taken drastic action because there isn’t great desire from the populace to do so. If people wanted to reduce emissions then they would do so on their own without government intervention.
Do we see individuals taking responsibility for man-made global warming? Not a chance! Even those who profess worry expect that government will fix this problem. SUV's are still selling like hotcakes. Each year the number of flights increases by 6%, flying to far-away places for business and pleasure, & delivering a CO2 sucker-punch high in the atmosphere. The average builder home is 2600 sq ft when a builder house in the 1950's was 1000 sq ft. More materials in today's home, more electricity, more air-conditioning. Office buildings are clad entirely in glass, an inefficient building material from the perspective of energy consumption. The best double glazing only has an R-value of 5. Livestock dominates 1/3 of arable land, and in some areas uses 25% of the water. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/ In Iran, Lake Urmia formerly 2000 sq mi, has been drained to 5% capacity. Brazil is busy burning the Amazon to farm soybeans for cattle. Indonesia is busy burning tropical forests for palm oil farms. Suddenly all packaged food and lotion contains palm oil! We have 7 billion people eager to eat burgers at McDonalds, or sushi at fast food joints. Suddenly so much demand we are emptying the oceans. Yet- we throw 40% of our food out! https://www.nrdc.org/resources/wasted-how-america-losing-40-percent-its-food-farm-fork-landfill Creatures of habit, we are self-indulgent & wasteful in every way. Will we ever change?
12
Given the craven cowardice of careerist politicians and the lack of serious leadership in the private sector, we are doomed to the worst case scenario. Look around at the housing stock being built- very little is compact or energy efficient- in Nashville, whole neighborhoods are being torn down to build bigger and more energy hungry homes.
Then take it to the streets- huge gas guzzling SUVs and Pickups with often only one person onboard roam the roads. Not to pick on Nashville, but they recently voted down a public transit system even as sprawl driven traffic gridlock chokes the city. Washington and New York both have public transit systems in sharp decline due to lack of investment.
Now take a look at migration, Americans are still moving from the more moderate climates of the Midwest and Northeast to the scorching and humid southeastern part of our country or the furnace of the southwest. Each of those growing cities are afflicted with sprawl, which makes car culture the order of the day.
Now let's look at commerce, where just in time inventory systems put more trucks on the road than ever before in a globalized economy that has longer supply chains than ever in human history. The carbon footprint of the Chinese sourced manufacturing economy is huge and getting bigger and it extends to food, as well.
We are not acting like a species giving anything but lip service to climate change or mitigating the coming reckoning.
13
I switched to a clean energy supplier for my electricity. Do this tomorrow! I am eating less meat. We should not think any change is futile. Our children, grandchildren and great great grandchildren are depending upon us. Let us stop being selfish and face our problems with wisdom.
6
One of the multiple climate-related impacts will be mass migrations from the most affected regions to the least affected. Sort of like the current “caravan” of Central Americans walking to the U.S. border, only orders of magnitude larger. It will happen in our hemisphere and elsewhere and we and our government should not be surprised when it does.
7
Dear all, in order to try and save some semblance of the current world’s natural order, please do the following starting immediately: 1) stop eating meat and fish except for, perhaps, certain occasional celebrations (eat like your grand parents or great grand parents), and 2) do all you can to try and cut your fuel consumption by 50 percent. If all of us do these things (which are indeed doable) we can potentially save 10 to 30 percent of the world’s corral reefs. That is the best case scenario. It is grim, but it is clearly worth doing. If we continue on as we are, then in ten years time we will “bake in” a 100% loss of all of the world’s corral reefs. Obviously, such an event will have profound knock-on impacts. The loss of reefs is already substantially underway, and the loss is caused by human created CO2. The time for action has long passed. Don’t wait on the politicians; they are far too slow. Saving at least part of what is truly valuable is each of our individual responsibility. Do all you can. Start today.
18
Our military-industrial complex has consumed $7,000,000,000,000 on our global war on terrorism. More aircraft carriers, Joint Strike Fighters, and Special Operations Commands are no defense against climate change.
Al Gore would have invested some of those GWOT dollars on transitioning to clean energy. But, citizens of our Saudi allies flew planes into buildings, and we invaded Iraq.
Our planet's environment is in the hands of our military-industrial complex and a few big energy companies. Their behavior will not change. Recently, a squadron of $250,000,000 a piece aircraft where destroyed, by a hurricane. How appropriate.
9
It's always going to be "too little too late" because governments will pussyfoot around forever afraid to risk their popularity and the common people don't think for themselves. We could all cut back to a simpler lifestyle using very little power and fuel, I already have, but then again, I'm sort of an ageing hippy type.
To add to this, I'm seeing an increase in the number of shark "attacks" because the reefs are at least 50% dead and the sharks are hungry. I guess this hunger would reflect across all species.
The ocean is heating up; there must be some dramatic results to follow, but we as individuals can only try to lead the way forward so that others can emulate. Do what you can and talk to everybody without arguing with them; try to get people onside, even if only just a little bit - it all helps. Cheers tarun krsna.
8
The Conservatives tell me climate change isn't real. They also tell me that I shouldn't believe in the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. They seem like honest well informed people so I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
6
What ever is causing this will not be stopped by all of you tree huggers.....ever. It's a 4 billion year old series of climate cycles. Go cry, scream, jump up and down over this. Won't make a difference and deal with the card you are delt.
2
@JoetheNobody
The next card being dealt is a climate that changing 10-20 times faster than any in changes seen since the dinosaurs roamed. Plants and animals won't be able to adapt fast enough....food chains will break.
And you are ok with that.
11
@JoetheNobody that’s the problem with not understanding how this climate change is different than the natural climate cycles you are referring to.
8
@JoetheNobody Please just go back in your cave and stay out of the way if you can't lend a hand (comment made with a nod to Bob Dylan). What about what you see out your window and what's going on all over the world doesn't raise just a little warning that something scary might be afoot? Maybe you think that the weather already HAS changed, and it's not going to change much more. I'm thinking that heating might just be getting started, and things could get very, very bad... possibly very quickly (a decade or two), let's hope it's a little longer. Here's something to think about... what if you're wrong and things go really south really quickly... how are you going to face your kids and grand-kids? They will know that you and your Fox-buddies were part of a shameful profit-driven scheme to delay our response; they will know that you are partially responsible for the misery and danger they could face.
I'm a retired scientist (BA Chemistry, PhD Biochemistry), so no direct expertise in climate or weather, but I did a lot of work on runaway heating in another context. As we melt reflective ice to absorptive water and burn forests to dark black absorptive wastelands (that absorb more heat from the sun) heating of the Earth will accelerate (just how fast is uncertain, nonlinear systems can be quite sensitive). It takes a few minutes for white bread in a toaster to turn brown (less reflective), but the runaway from brown to smoke can be really quick. Worried now?
11
I bought an electric car, I try to shop local. I'm building a compost bin. It sure feels futile.
15
Climate change has been the manifestation of five major mass extinctions resulting from multiple suspected extraterrestrial and terrestrial causes. There are winners and losers in the race for evolutionary natural fit selection survival.
The birds and the bony fish were the last major vertebrates winners. Among the mammals the rodents and bats have been the winners. While the reptiles have fared much better than the amphibians who are the most sensitive to climate change. If we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction it is an open question how African primate apes aka humans will fare.
3
@Blackmamba But what if it gets really hot? Extinction hot? That is no longer out of the question.
There's a lot of methane (much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2) frozen in "permafrost" near the poles--what if gets warm enough to thaw the "permafrost"? Also, there are huge quantities of methane trapped within ice in the cold depths of the oceans in the form of "clathrates" (check Wikipedia)... but if the oceans warm enough, then that methane will also be released. If one of these happens it will drive a major increase in warming leading to major change to our way of life... and if both methane reservoirs are released, Katie bar the door.
5
@PSPThere are 9 billion tons of carbon in permafrost and 9 gigatons of carbon in soils. Permafrost is at 32 degrees in central Alaska and Siberian permafrost has been observed to be melting at 20 meters down, a new surprise. The Methyl hydrates you talk of are kept solid by a combination of pressure and low temperatures and bubble up around Siberia due to the new warmth in the arctic Ocean, A catastrophic release millions of years ago was an extinction event that raised the Earth's temperature 6 degrees and is marked in our genes as a bottleneck reduction of humanity to 10,000 individuals.
6
@PSP
Some humans are very well adapted to really hot. Methane much worse than CO2. But less durable.
1
Adaptation and mitigation without massive cuts in carbon will be utterly useless because the outcomes will become ever more catastrophic.
6
US emissions are going down, meanwhile the French are almost ready to riot over a small increase in gas taxes. Anyone who thinks that people are ready to give up modern amenities are foolish. Adaptation is the prudent route.
2
@John - Prudence suggests we limit further emissions as quickly as possible while making the expensive adaptations warming will demand. Less CO2 lowers the damage to adapt to.
In Miami, one small down-payment on "adaptation" is raising half a billion dollars in extra taxes, just to put in pumps and other systems to cope with flooding during spring tides. Flooding from just tides, not tides-plus-storms.
And you're in Virginia? Norfolk's seeing those floods, too, and sea level rise just adds to the damage taxpayers will be "adapting" tax dollars to.
"With the highest rate of sea-level rise on the US East Coast, 4.5 mm per year, it has been ranked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as 10th among the world’s port cities whose assets are at risk from rising seas. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans is the only US city in more danger.
[...]
Sea level in Norfolk has risen 46 cm in the past 100 years. About 20 cm of that is attributable to the global rise in sea level. "
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3163
There are studies that indicate that ice mass loss in the Western Antarctic will result in shifts in gravity that will increase sea levels along the Atlantic.
https://www.axios.com/losing-ice-from-west-antarctica-threatens-us-coast-e2beb1aa-d68a-4c50-acf1-e716e66d5403.html
Reducing emissions fast is prudent.
9
@John
For info: US per capita CO2 emissions are about three times greater than France. US emissions are still very high and are going to stay that way unfortunately
3
@John So, how's it going to work when roving bands of gun nuts (with AR15s and up) stop by to "borrow" some of your amenities? What if it gets so dry that agriculture is unreliable and people start fighting for food? What if it's hard to find drinkable water?
We should have taken this problem seriously long ago. There is still time (maybe, probably) but if we don't want to face a bleak future, we need to move on this now, at WWII scale and up.
7
Yet people keep eating animal products and flying on airplanes. Insane.
10
This article will be enclosed with our holiday/end of year letter.
This is not being "Debbie Downer" but an attempt to inspire action to tackle the issues.
Knowledge is power.
8
One word: solastalgia.
The primary anthropogenic driver is not global warming per se, not climate change per se, but global population and global economic growth, each of which contributes directly to climate change and global warming through the production of greenhouse gases, and through the destruction of rainforest, desertification, destruction of marine plants that capture CO2.
The global population ia about 7.7 billion. By 2050, it will be almost ten billion. Most of that increase will be in Subsaharan Africa where one grandmother featured in a recent article had one hundred grandchildren.
Every major sect of the world's organised politico-religious groups – Roman Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Baptism, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxist-Lenism, National Socialism, fascism – from their inception have encouraged and still encourage human population growth.
All major political parties support population growth. Every large firm supports population growth because more workers increase competition for jobs and drive down wages. More humans means more consumers.
Every major media outlet, newspaper TV or radio supports population growth.
Those who claim that global population growth is a primary driver of climate change and global warming are dismissed by the great and the good, and by our lords and masters, as Cassandras, alarmists, cranks, leftists, liberals, fascists, atheists, racists – take your pick, any a hominem attack will suffice.
35
NYT in a different article gave advice to people suffering from the smoke in California. We went through similar horrible smoke up here in Seattle in August, and I wanted to share some advice missing in the California article.
To clean the air inside a room in your house, all you need in a box fan and furnace filter. You can Google for details. It really works.
4
Starting with Paul Ehrlich and the "Population Bomb" in 1968 threats of dire consequences in about 10 years ago in the future. His threat was over population followed by famine and societal breakdown. James Hansen and others followed in 1988 with "Global Warming" which needed to be acted on quickly or terrible things would quickly follow. We had only 10 years to act .Every 5 to 10 years we heard the same or more dire warnings. About a decade ago Al Gore said many climate scientists predicted there would be no ice cap in 5 to 7 years. 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979. This is how we base policy using flawed computer models , forecasts, and experts which have proved wrong time and time again.
3
@art josephs, actually, none of those - from Ehrlich to Gore - have been proven wrong in terms of their ideas. Their theses were correct - their timelines were off. All of the things they "predicted" are happening and will continue to do so. Just on a somewhat longer timeline than predicted.
6
@art josephs - None of your references are accurate readings of their work. But then, you are from Houston.
7
@art josephs So the climate is not changing fast enough for you to get excited? Or since some predictions haven’t materialized to the extent forecasted, let’s discard the entire notion that man is impacting the environment to negative effect?
10
"some tropical coastal areas of the planet, like the Atlantic coast of South and Central America, could be hit by as many as six crises at a time"
If Trumplicans think the current trickle of refugees coming from Central America is bad, wait till they figure out what they'll bequeath their children and grandchildren through their inaction on climate change, their opposition to mitigation efforts and their short-sighted energy policies.
5
As a result of fires, Californians are choking on bad air. Currently, air now.gov is overburdened with everyone checking their "numbers". Though constricting lungs, headaches, fatigue and nausea from soot fallout and wind distribution may give millions an indication, too.
https://airnow.gov/state/CA/index.cfm
May we be the change we're seeking in the world, and vote in leaders who will address climate change head-on. Legislate climate change initiatives. Now.
9
@DB
So you want to obliterate China and India? Those two put out more pollution than the rest of the world combined. Reducing a minuscule amount here in the us beyond what we are already doing wont help. I like our current leaders, they are strong.
I’ll believe it when property values start dropping in CA, Miami Beach, Martha’s Vineyard, etc.
2
So we should probably get off our smartphones, computers, and turn off our TVs now...
2
The earth is a living organism with Mother Nature basically maintaining equilibrium between all the different species and regions.
Sadly, the way I see it, humans are a cancer in this equation and will eventually be destroyed. :-(
13
First of all climate change is inevitable. You can't defer to science only when it's convenient. Cyclical climate change has been a natural part of the Earths history and it hasn't always been change that's conducive to life.
Now if we only focus on climate change that can be attributed to human activity we're left with a bunch of stuff like burning fossil fuels, destruction of forests due to human habitation and agriculture, manufacturing waste and most of all over population.
So in essence there really is no problem, the earth was here long before humans and will be here long after we kill ourselves off.
3
@James B. I agree with you. The earth will recover, but the human race may not.
3
For all who advocate population control as a solution: Population control is a long-term goal but will not do much to stop warming. The unborn are not adding CO2 - the inhabitants of developed nations are. Eliminating them (read: us) would be faster and more effective.
6
@pazza4sno, sarcasm aside, the problem has two main prongs: carbon emissions and destruction of natural areas. You note the first. Examples of the second range from filling the oceans with plastic (mostly dumped from Asia) to cutting down forests (clearing land for agriculture or urban sprawl, cutting trees for charcoal, etc.) to poaching animals for bush meat and illegal trade in animal parts. While developed and fast-developing nations are responsible for much of the carbon emissions problem, overpopulation throughout the planet (including in undeveloped countries) is primarily responsible for the latter. You can't solve the problem without addressing both prongs.
2
Totally agree. To add that the global population curve has been leveling off in a classic S-shaped curve that is projected to be flat by 2100, with a population of around 11 billion. Little that we can do consciously will likely directly change this in a managed way. Rather, sociologists and economists have been able to show for decades that population growth in a region is highly correlated with development indices: the better the levels of economic and social wellbeing, the fewer average births per capita. Of course climate change and could throw a wrench in all of this.
2
Two observations: none of our leaders talk about reigning in rampant consumption around the world, particularly in the mega nations: US, Europe, China and India.
Secondly, our business / tech icons like Bezos and Musk talk about leaving the planet altogether. They completely ignore the reality that humans are a part of an ecosystem and utterly dependent on it for survival. Do they propose to carry the millions of species we depend on to Mars and beyond? They need to stop leading us down that dangerous path of wishful thinking and get down to tackling the real problems of global warming.
14
People have to be willing to take a drastic step such as reducing dependence and usage of these companies for any of them to listen. Are the humans willing to be inconvenienced to take a stand?
1
@SG don't know whether we as a species are capable of acting in our own interests. This existential challenge will provide the answer!
If all this hand-wringing is putting you in the mood for some action, check out these two links:
the carbon neutrality project from the Mora lab (first author of the Nature climate change paper)
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Carbon%20Neutrality%20Project
calculate your household carbon footprint from a UC Berkeley website:
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/calculator
What is also clear from this study is that the health risks include negative impacts on physical and mental health This good NYTImes article could have been improved by discussing the mental health problems, risks to unborn children, disease, suicide risk and other factors the researchers included in Figure 1. It is these types of impacts which will reduce the resilience of our communities to "natural" disasters.
The comments to this article so far include exhortations and directions that individuals and communities can take to mitigate effects, but if individuals have diseases and mental health problems such as PTSD, planning and executing the suggested changes will be extremely difficult.
Perhaps a follow-up article would be useful?
P.S. The NYT itself ought to ask why a headline about the internet in China was positioned above this article reporting a large scientific study.
12
Long before we're cooked, drowned, or frozen, the atmosphere will become unsafe for humans. The balance of Mammalian blood oxygen chemistry is complex, and a lot can go wrong when oxygen is replaced with various other gasses, compounds, and vapors.
3
Want to save the planet? Stop eating animal products. The energy required to produce animal rather than plant foods is orders of magnitude larger. Animal agriculture also requires deforestation and produces thousands of tons of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas). Of course, reducing your electricity and fossil fuel footprint in other ways is important, but nothing else comes even close to changing your diet.
14
@Steve, actually many thing come even closer to the heart of the problem than changing your diet. Start first by controlling overpopulation. Then there is overconsumption, disregard for protecting nature and wildlife, etc. The balance of our global ecosystem is out of whack - the planet cannot sustain 8 or 10 billion humans, all with voracious appetites. Do you think the problem(s) will be solved if the number of humans reaches 10 or 11 billion in a few decades, as predicted, but all of humanity becomes vegetarian?
4
Let's say that climate change didn't exist, and that we ran on all clean renewable energy. Wouldn't we continue to want bigger houses (ravaging our forests), fish all the fish from the ocean, ruin all our farmland with erosion and pesticide, drain our aquifers, pave over all our land for shopping malls, fill the oceans with plastic, cause the extinction of most other species?
Wouldn't the end result be the same, only taking a bit longer?The root cause of our predicament is not carbon fuel, it is man's nature.
9
@John Dyer Not everyone or every culture is like that (wanting more and more). Hunting and gathering societies lived sustainably on our planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Some cultures and societies emphasize endless growth, and unfortunately, ours is one, but that is not the same as "human nature."
3
Very nice point. If energy was totally clean and easily available, we’d still be decimating biodiversity and overexploiting natural resources. But at least we’d have a stable window in time to , just maybe, figure out how to live sustainably. As it is, the time is too short to get smart enough to avoid driving off a cliff.
2
The powerful folks telling us there’s no merit to scientific claims about climate change need to be held responsible. They’ve known, or should have known, for decades that serious problems are coming. We’ve already had five destructive hurricanes and countless wildfires just on Trump’s watch, and his responses have been worse than useless.
The deniers hope to continue to stall and misdirect and literally burn the house down without repercussions. Or maybe they’re not scientists so they have no comments. Or god will provide (no doubt only for the righteous).
It all comes down to risk management and paying for damages. Mitigation and compensation should mostly be covered by the fossil fuel industries. They’ve raked in the profits, bought politicians, and misinformed the public. So punitive damages are also warranted.
Let’s start with a carbon tax and a contingent lien against fossil fuel reserves, other physical assets, and financial holdings. If there’s no climate disaster, then no problem and no confiscation. If the scientists are right, then an increasing portion, say 120% of damages, becomes the property of the state to wind down until the economy and the climate are carbon safe.
We need to get the incentives and the consequences to line up with those most responsible. It’s just that simple.
16
Excellent. Even Republican economists have largely been in favor of a carbon tax. But then again the government’s own agencies, including DOD, have little doubt that AGW is a clear and present danger. So what are our elder statesmen doing ignoring and denying it?!
4
This is partly why I have no children. One person, one lifetime of garbage in landfills and pollution in the sky, then bye-bye and you guys are on your own for 2100. PEACE OUT
14
The period 2100 doesn’t seem far off. It seems immediate. Just around the bend immediate. The kids today will be living with this problem in ways that may be unimaginable right now. I’m scared for them. But we’re not trying hard enough right now to change our direction. That’s true and we have no excuse. We need to do a lot more than what we’re doing.
12
The writing was on the wall a long, long time ago. Each generation makes the same mistakes as the last. We're all doomed by our collective momentum. If you feel psyched about doing something about this, if you feel you can rally human beings, go to the nearest Wal-Mart and watch people carting off truckloads of stuff they don't need. Then go to some highway junction where there's a river, many rivers, of roaring traffic, and you'll realize the scope of the problem. It's inevitable. What's happening won't stop until the last gallon of oil and the last bucket of coal have been auctioned and consumed. As a Zen master once told me, buying a roll of brown paper towel is not going to save the planet, and that's the drop in the bucket that any individual's effort to right this mess is going to amount to. Sorry, but it's true, and if you have kids, sorry for them, too. Tell them the sad truth about human nature, about your own nature, so that they don't resent you when they get old for telling them fairy tales.
No, what's more likely to happen between now and Armageddon is the John Belushi solution, many times over: road trip!!!!
3
One should not overlook the generational issue. Those in charge of saving us today will be dead before any of this is realized. Trump is 72. His supporter and climate change deniers in general are skewed to older generations.
Unfortunately, it's the youngest generation and those not born yet that will bare the impact of our mistakes today. They end up inheriting a world their grandparents destroyed.
34
Thanks for your comment, @Tim -- many grownups understand the need to attack climate change forcefully. But young people are passionate on the topic, and taking action. Here's a recent story about one initiative: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/climate/kids-climate-lawsuit-lawyer.html
11
@John Schwartz
I agree that young people are often passionate about the issue. But they still are not voting in the numbers we need to route the Republicans from every single office they hold, and they are more prone to third party voting or being mesmerized by the Bernies of this world, which is another way of making sure Republicans get into office. In PA, Mich and Wis, the Green vote bleeding from Clinton was enough by itself to elect Trump, as was the Bernie Bros in tantrum mode who voted for Trump directly because their darling lost the Democratic primary.
Passion is wonderful but it needs to be wisely directed.
3
The government is going to do nothing. I hate this idea but the military should take over the government. Deal with China and India to have one child families with bonuses for zero children. Tax reductions for no children or one child. All fortune 500 companies need to give extra wight in hiring to individuals who live within a bicycle ride to work. Solar panels on all new construction. Do not build in coastal flood plains. Help and reward third world countries for reducing family size. The list could continue on. Yes, I am talking about losing lots of freedoms but that is the price we pay for the destruction we have imposed on our environment. If we do not take this kind of drastic action, then like a number of the comments say, we are doomed.
9
I so often read the statements and beliefs of the people who think climate change is a hoax.
Indeed, a discussion and prediction that has changed as technology improves and data is gathered, so it's liberal scam, and they won't believe it until it happens.
Which means there WON'T be a day after tomorrow soon.
4
When I was a college student, a science fiction novel "Japan Sinks" was published in Japan. It was truly a mega hit. At that time, in the 1970's, Japan was enjoying an economic boom and was also suffering from severe environmental problems like air/river/sea pollution. I don't know if this book triggered, Japan in fact changed its course and became one of the least polluted countries in the world. It should be noted that a single popular book can be more influential than thousands of academic researches.
3
@KI, I'm not too sure about Japan being the least polluted, Fukushima is a radioactive disaster still happening.
1
For some reason I can't get lincs to submit, but if you go to NOAA's climate at a glance and look up CA Climate Div2 -- you'll see that there is no warming trend nor drought trend. The last couple of years have been dry and warmer, but not unusually so. Yes when there are warmer drier years, there will be fires. But that has nothing to do with climate change. Temps and precip vary annually.
And how about some more detail on all these calamities. Pretty thin gruel I'd say.
@Ralphie - I'm always happy to help you.
Here's NOAA's Climate At A Glance showing the global land surface temperature record, and the trend since 1949 - so the second half of the overall data set.
From 1949 through 2017, the land surface of the world warmed at a rate of 2.15°C per century.
If you switch the trend settings to the first half of the record, it will show the trend was also warming from 1880 to 1949, but at only 0.74°C per century.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land/ytd/12/1880-2018?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1949&lasttrendyear=2018
Looks like trends to me, Ralphie.
16
@b fagan B Fagan -- I applaud your advocacy but wonder about your critical thinking. You keep putting up that graph as if it is based on accurate data.
It isn't. Do the research. The global data set is based on nothing more than estimates and adjustments. The only data set we have that is half way close to valid and reliable is the contiguous US which shows no warming trend.
I'm a statistician and published scientist. I've spent my career analyzing data of various sorts. I have a Ph.D.from a top university. I'm pretty good at analyzing data. I've made a living doing it.
What exactly are your credentials. What research have you done into the actual data data?
Just asking.
I understand CC is a religion and you have a right to your beliefs, but you should do a little digging.
But the graph is about as worthless as confederate money.
Here is the temp graph for CA climate div 2 (where the big fire was)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/divisional/time-series/0402/tmax/12/12/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
@Ralphie
Your PhD in another discipline and knowledge of statistics does not qualify you in climate science.
What disqualifies you is your constant repetition of snark and insults and misrepresentations of the vast majority of well known and thoroughly established climate science, scientists, and work from related disciplines. You also ignore what the article describes, which is multiple real-time evidence that predictions are coming true.
Changing the parameters from the NCDC/NOAA site does not change the information. It was interesting that your alteration providing something that tells the same story you pretend to discredit.
7
None of this matters to Trump and his Evangelical white male and female voters
As long as America is a white, Christian nation dig coal, use as much gasoline as you can, worry not about your carbon footprint, and de-regulate.
They care not about their neighbor, let alone some future generation.
15
What everyone would really like and appreciate is the admission from all world leaders is that climate change and warming is real and forecast scenarios are real, before they are totally upon us.
Most leaders are from a different generation where exploitation of the environment and resources was normal, encouraged and lauded.
This changing world has become to small to support such thought.
Get rid of these dinosaurs. Your children will thank you if you want to chance bringing them into the world.
13
@Gregor
Amen, Gregor, amen.
2
@Gregor
Ah yes. Be sure to support Kinder Morgan--oops Trudeau's project ,and don't forget TPP. Somehow, I thought the youngsters were supposed to be smarter.
1
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- Upton Sinclair
“I assumed like everybody else, way back when everyone was talking about global warming and all that, I assumed that that was probably right, until I found out what it was going to cost.”
- Sen. James Inhofe
(R) Oklahoma
It seems there are two things we can do. 1) Like the Democratic drive to get out the vote, we must drive the sobering facts of climate change into the heads of those insufficiently engaged. They must know it’s real, its current and future consequences if left unmitigated, and which party is most serious in addressing it. Then, they must vote accordingly. 2) Like Gandhi, “We must be the change we want to see in the world.” Make your own carbon footprint as small as possible. I volunteer with a group that installs solar systems for low income, non-profits, etc. Incorporate solar and wind into as many energy scenarios as possible....car, home, workplace, etc.
21
So is there any place in the entire world that will be better than others, or is everywhere just going to be totally messed up? (And I suppose if there is "any place" that would be better, with enough water and warmth to grow crops, that the ultra wealthy would be already buying it up or will simply steal it when the times comes...)
11
@Lynn Taylor - Canada, Russia and a couple of the Scandinavian countries stand to gain more than they lose from the changes under way.
That's about it.
4
@Lynn Taylor, At the moment New Zealand is that place. Especially among the Silicon Valley set.
1
In addition to drought, wildfires etc, one might want to add a clueless, leaves raking leader.
30
Last summer the typically cooler west side of Los Angeles - imagine pleasant sea-breezes, reasonable warmth - suffered 115+ temperatures of stagnant, oppressive air. Weeks of it. Record-breaking heat waves. Drought. Brittle brush and trees. Now we suffer from the worst wildfires in history and poor air quality that makes even healthy people lethargic. It's sad that federal leaders don't acknowledge climate change and the devastation of its impact that is crushing us. I believe climate change is the most important and horrific "event" in my lifetime - and yours. I fear for the future because people aren't waking up and making changes. From the personal changes - walking, taking electric or hybrid buses, eating plant-based diets - to those that must be mandated by government, like demanding 100% renewable energy from builders and energy companies. I wish smarter people of vision ruled the world. Meanwhile, Californians buy masks and air purifiers, and clear brush, and pray - all while listening to the hum of traffic of people driving one-by-one as individuals, in individual cars, contributing to the world hum, a symphonic rev of engines toward our demise. The never ending heating planet, lashes revenge on us who abused its abundance despite knowing better. We were warned in 1988. James Hansen. He predicted it, and it will get worse. And faster. Pay attention leaders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVz67cwmxTM
25
@DB This was predicted by Environment Canada 45 years ago!
9
Everyone talks about global climate change and no one talks about one major aspect of how we got here: overpopulation.
There are too many people polluting the planet in myriad ways.
Why does no one mention the hazards of overpopulation? How it contributes, and is a fundamental cause, of climate change. And plastic all over the place. And, air pollution from too many cars. And, chemicals in agriculture to feed the billions.
Why was China so denigrated for having a “one child policy”? Just imagine if they hadn’t had that policy!
Overpopulation is the foundational reason for global warming.
29
@Lily See my post about no children. 7.5 billion people on the planet clogging the highways, polluting the air, decimating forests, flushing all those toilets, eating all that junk food, drinking all that alcohol, and watching all those pro sports games. We really need that many humans? I think not. The best thing anyone can do for the planet isn't recycling and driving a Hybrid. It's NOT HAVING SO MANY CHILDREN. If this means I must die alone, so be it. Both my mother and father died by themselves, in their homes.
11
@Lily It is lifestyle combined with population. The contribution of a significant number of people (I don't know the exact figure, but I'd guess half) to GHG is low, and to the extent there is a contribution it is because of what the other half wants (i.e., to sustain the lifestyle of the richer half). Most of the GHG in the atmosphere didn't come from populated areas - the US is not that heavily populated but has been the largest contributor to date on a per capita basis.
IMO, it's the middle class lifestyle for 7 billion people that's the problem. Otherwise the earth's carrying capacity for humans I think is greater than 7 billion.
3
@LilyThank YOU!!!
3
As millions more people in India, China and elsewhere become middle class, usually the first things they want to buy are air conditioners and motor vehicles. We're doomed.
15
@MS and often eat meat and other resource-expensive protein.
6
I wholly agree with the urgency and the radical changes we need to make in order to mitigate the radical changes headed our way but the persistence of ‘we are doomed’ ‘no one is taking action’ comments are counter productive. There are millions of people diligently working to transition our energy systems and decarbonize our economies. Wind is the cheapest form of energy in the world, it’s now cheaper to build a new solar plant in Germany than operate an existing coal one, states and countries are upping the ante and decarbonization goals.
We are and will be deeply impacted by climate change but we need to balance ‘hey this is happening stories’ with ‘here’s how to take action’ stories. We are not only climate change illiterate we are climate resilience illiterates.
19
We're not making the drastic changes needed, and we're not going to, based on what I'm seeing now. Has anyone's life drastically changed, unless you've already lost everything to a storm, flood or fire? Nobody I know is even making incremental changes! Humanity, however, has survived massive onslaughts to its population, not just war but natural disaster, disease, and harsh climate. Evidence suggests that a few times in hominin history -- 1.7 M years ago (https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c) and 70k years ago (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3340777/Humans-almost-became-extinct-in-70000-BC.html) -- we were reduced to only a few thousand individuals. Unlike some, I don't believe the human race is "doomed." We'll survive as a species. Don't think I'm being optimistic though. This is going to kill most of the human population, if not due to natural disaster or starvation, then war. I don't have children, but if I did I'd be extremely worried about their chances for survival. And I'd be teaching them how to survive with technology from 200-300 years ago, scarce water, food and fuel.
10
Our infrastructure is so old and stressed that just one climate disaster is more than we can manage.Exhibit one is the flooding of subways in New York during hurricane Sandy, another is the dysfunctional electrical grid inPuerto RICO and even now there is such a housing crisis in California that there is no option for all of the newly homeless.There is no hope of surviving multiple disasters if we are always living on the edge hoping that we can survive without investing thought and money to forestall the inevitable.
9
It would seem reasonable to make people pay for the privilege of using the air as a repository for their exhaust fumes, a payment that could be collected by tax increases that would embody the true environmental costs of gasoline consumption. But very few are willing to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term benefit of themselves and their descendants. In Washington State, a state with an educated population where the human contribution to climate change is widely accepted, we see voters rejecting a referendum imposing a "fee" on carbon producers. In France -- where denials of climate change appear to be rare -- we see massive demonstrations protesting a recent increase in the tax on diesel fuel. See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46254566. Tax gas more to reduce consumption? It's a non-starter.
7
Ask Trump and Scott Pruitt if there is anything wrong with climate change. They are experts.
16
Wait until the Boreal tundra and tiga thaws. Massive amounts of methane gas will be added to the earth's already warming atmospheric stew. Coming soon.
43
Maybe this is Mother Natures way of preparing the planet for the next dominant specie.
13
Aka insects
3
When a modest proposal to take a baby step towards mitigation was placed on the ballot in Washington State last week, it went down overwhelmingly. If not there, where?
The answer is obvious: Nowhere. Homo Sapppyness will always come through to help push the wagon even faster as it heads for the cliff.
22
@Reality
A modest proposal indeed....
3
We can’t even bring ourselves to prepare in ways provide immediate savings instead of cost—like stopping subsidized flood ibsurance in coastal areas. The two friends that I have who are the loudest activists for legislation to combat climate change are also the biggest energy hogs. Boats, airplanes, and 3/4 ton trucks for one personal commuting. Life is too short to waste on this futile yammering.
13
Why some forward thinking politician can’t make climate change *the* central issue of his/her presidential campaign, a moral imperative to unite the world against a common enemy (habitat destruction), is beyond me. It puts all our stupid tribalism and wedge issues into context. I think Americans of all parties could get behind such a single-minded focus, if communicated from a place of deep moral responsibility and with hope.
Yes I know, Al Gore... but the world is in a different place now vs 2000. Everyone can see first hand the precarious state we are in.
6
@David I would be happy if even one politician on the planet had the courage to admit that the planet is finite and growth cannot occur forever.
3
@David
Sadly, this is a partisan issue already. I know many Republicans who laugh at the idea of human caused climate change. They think it’s a liberal money-making hoax.
2
I paraphrase but I recall a NYT headline that went something like, "The weather did what Democrats couldn't do, and convince Republicans that Climate Change is real." I laughed because I thought I was reading an ONION headline. This summer on a train up to the Jungfrau Glacier a father from Tennessee was telling his children that climate change is not being exaggerated by humans but rather volcanoes. Sigh and Ha! It was all I could think then and now. Mother Nature doesn't care if you are a crack pot, Republican engineer from Tennessee or a yella dog Democrat from Texas. Mother Nature is ALWAYS going to win. Keep denying it folks. That is obviously working.
11
Scientists are a notoriously conservative bunch. Credibility to the point of innocuousness seems to prevail if any predictions are expected. Thus we are always behind the curve on climate change.
Here is a more realistic idea of the future;
Humans will not do anything to deflect us from the worst case scenario. Economic inflexibility and dysfunctional politics, combined with predictable social rivalry and eventual collapse, will make any solutions into fleeting gasps of hope.
Feedback loops and completely unexpected new changes in baseline data will make any predictions even more problematic as we proceed into a global phenomenon that is unprecedented.
We will all deny this to the bitter end rather than admit that evolution is blind, and that our species is the best example.
12
We are doomed. Our last chance to make a change was eliminated when President "Brush the Floors" was elected. I feel sorry for the next generation that instead of worrying about building walls and caravans, we did not make Climate Change the number 1 priority.
8
As Climate Change continues its inexorable path, many technologies will be offered to mitigate the impact.
Who will decide which solution(s) we fund to save the planet? Will the decision be made by scientists around the world working together? Or will the decision be made by 535 lobbyists (aka: congress) and Trump?
Scary thought, eh?
8
Politicians and corporations tell us we cannot afford to invest in clean, renewable technology - or tax corporations + consumers for their pollution
Looking at the future cost of disaster relief to our society (emptying out government funds very quickly) we should ask:
How can we afford NOT to invest in new and preventive technology?
14
But James Inhofe and his ilk need fossil-fuel industry money to fund their re-election campaigns.
So they see these future disasters as a small price to be paid.
Mr. Inhofe, et al., know they won’t be alive in 2100.
10
I think the scientific bias is that the scientists are so painfully aware of the damage one mistake can do to the entire cause that they are seriously erring on the side of over caution.
14
@ssweeneyYou are so wrong.
1
The "question" of climate change can be answer easily. Bring the heads of the military, corporation CEOs, and the mayors of major cities into a room, make them swear to tell the truth, and ask them only one question: "what are you doing/planing to deal with climate change for your company/city/troops?" Not one of them will say "nothing".
5
One thing that needs attention :
Mutating viruses. As host populations die off
viruses will find somewhere else to live.
There are some out there that make Ebola look like a common cold.
4
Every article on climate change has the obligatory phrase, "By 2100". This is not true. It is complete cowardice by these scientists. If one watches what is happening everyday around the globe one will glean a very different perspective of the rapidity with which this habitat, our Earth, is changing. Systems are functioning in a different way and that is causing extreme events. Most of the extreme events create other events. This is happening at an exponential rate, not a linear rate that can be drawn out to 2100.
Please scientists, I understand you have to be specialists, but a honest picture of the whole is a very different scenario than a linear draw out. We are in far more trouble than that right now. I beg you to speak your minds without fear of losing your jobs. And I realize that no one wants to spend any money telling us really bad news, the worse news there is. There is absolutely no incentive to do so, and every incentive to keep us on the linear fairytale path over the cliff. Readers, recognize all that we cannot predict, and how past predictions of the science body have been much too conservative, evidenced by what is currently happening. The outliers are not crazy, or incorrect with their science, they are just being systematically discredited, until they are proven correct, and that is happening at an alarming rate too.
51
Thanks for your comment, @Leslie S. I wrote the story. The story, and the study it focuses on, make it plain that these problems are occurring now. One reason that so many studies refer to 2100 is that the important work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has built projections to that date into its climate change scenarios.
19
@John Schwartz
Thank you for your reply, and an opportunity to communicate with you. I understand that the IPCC has done this. And the report is conservative; moisture levels, methane releases, and several other aspects are not well known and not built in. When the IPCC does this important work, it doesn't need to be copied, but can be pointed out, questioned. We know that the modeling has flaws for obvious reasons, this has never happened before as it is. To make stronger real statements to your readers, would it be possible to interview a few of the outlier's opinions on the IPCC report in articles? I realize this is asking you to go out of a limb, but we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by upping our game and inducing a bit of needed fear... Which will do much more to inspire action than does the 2100- hope scenario. We are fighting for everything, and have everything to lose. On twitter the discussions are much more robust, and more inline with observations. A friend that worked on the IPCC study has indicated that all things are still negotiated to some extent. Thank you again for this opportunity, and for your work.
10
@Leslie S
The latest report from the international team studying climate change did say that serious stuff is going to happen in the next 20 years or so. THey also suggested that we, collectively, will probably not do enough to change the results even in the near term.
Already we are seeing an alarming uptick in species extinction. Even pristine forrests are experiencing drastic reductions in insect populations.
Lest you think this irrelevant, please remember that those bug are often responsible for pollinating crops that supply our food.
We live in a vast and interconnected biome that is quickly shrinking. That may get us before we have to worry about sea levels or heat.
7
Thank you for writing about this. Too few people see the interlocking acceleration of the varied consequences of heating up the delicate clever balance of our decreasingly hospitable planet.
In addition to the Nature Climate Change article - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0315-6 - there's this warning from insurers: https://www.afr.com/business/insurance/climate-change-on-track-to-make-world-uninsurable-iag-20181115-h17xu5
From the Financial Review website, hardly a radical "rag":
"Climate change on track to make world 'uninsurable': IAG"
13
The difference between the deniers and those who say you have to look at both sides people and us, the engineers and builders of our buildings and infrastrucuture, is that we have to deal with reality in our work. We have to design for resiliency. We have to take into account the measurable affects of climate change and forecasts in projects designed to last 50, 100, 150 years or more. This is not a hypothetical, this is reality. There is no blame. It just is. The trends in global temperatures are affected by our current actions and when we take action. Or not. The physical affects are calculable. Building codes and standards are taking resiliency into account. Clients are demanding it.
11
We’re doomed. It was already too late decades ago. Systems arise to use available energy as fast as they can burn it. That’s the way it works. We didn’t get smart enough fast enough to avoid the consequences of it, if avoidance is possible. A pile of money won’t save anybody.
38
@Dean Smith
I disagree. We are choosing to be doomed. We could at least moderately improve the outcome with today's technology, with a marginal decrease in overall comfort and convenience. It would take work, with political effort, and personal choice. Theoretically, humans are capable of planning, and changing their behavior.
15
giving up all hope is not helpful thinking
7
@Dean Smith
I agree with Mr Smith, and also think we still have to try, by drastically reducing any doing, almost all doing. All the doing is making the heat. Stop now and try!
5
It's imperative that we act locally and more communities every day are doing just that--embracing ways of doing things that will result in dramatically less reliance on polluting energy sources. But as long as our leaders keep lying about it, pretending it isn't happening, censoring or condemning the information (as well as its messengers) all those local efforts won't make enough of a difference, in enough time to forestall these grim scenarios.
Just about every issue that comes up in the media can be related to climate change, which media have the responsibility to acknowledge. Trump triumphs once again by babbling about current forest management practices as being the main (or only) cause of California's wild fires. And the press largely lets him get away with it. That's inexcusable.
17
Rich people don't believe in climate changes, partly because they believe they will survive anyway. They are used to think that money can buy anything.
25
The rich people I know who own second homes in ski country like Aspen and Vail are terrified that climate change will destroy their lifestyles, rob their grandchildren of winter sports, bring down their proparty values and threaten their homes with fire.
Many rich people have invested a substantial portion of their personal wealth in ski area real estate. A $15 million home in Aspen is nothing to sneeze at, even for a billionaire. That value will not hold if climate change shortens the ski season down to a few weeks.
Those rich people are on our side. Jared and Ivanka are skiers. They're not on the denial side. I don't imagine many skiers or boarders are.
4
Any discussion of climate change or its consequences on future generations falls on deaf ears in this Administration. In order to gain our President's attention, perhaps articles should be written with headlines such as "KFC Predicts Massive Chicken Shortages due to Climate Changes" and "Is Coca-Cola Doomed in the Future?"
26
@L These two companies,KFC and COKE are doomed to collapse. One for excessive chemical fat leaden chickens, the other one for excessive sugar in there drinks which are totally none essential and harmful to health and the purse . I avoided both, along with all fast foods for decades. I don't miss them at all.
Trump's lies and misrepresentations are visible every day, but with his denial of the calamitous effects that we are bringing upon ourselves with our continued use of fossil fuels, he is actively trying to kill us, our children and their children.
29
This can't be true. I know because Trump told me so! Ostrich Party=GOP.
9
Everyone wants to blame Trump. The fact that 1/3 of the world's population resides in two countries, India and China...... and still growing, that seems to escape all. That is your Climate debacle.... It's called population out of control.
16
But US has the largest carbon foot print. China and India are making big investments in renewable energy. US is not.
21
So I guess it's a good thing, then, that as of this very day the Trump administration is making it harder for U.S. women to get birth control prescriptions covered under their employer-provided health care. I mean, we wouldn't want women to be able to control the number of children they have, would we? Especially with abortion rights under threat.
8
@CromwellAnd China is HEAVILY invested in solar. They are going to beat out the US in panel production. Trump made sure of that.
3
Trump is so self-obsessed and concerned about grandstanding instead of helping this country, that he referred to the charred lands he was standing on as "Pleasure" California.
Twice.
And then denied the lack of response along with dire consequences that relate to the existence of climate change.
... as well.
I noticed he also didn't bother to visit anyone at that Walmart.
That was probably a good thing. Who knows what idiotic nonsense he would have pulled had he bothered to. Lob more paper towels, probably.
9
The shame is that we've known about this with near perfect clarity for decades, yet we've taken no real action. We've taken no real action because it would be costly to entrenched energy constructs - it would have cost the fossil fuel industry an industry. The shame is that our elected leaders have played to the politics of ignorance, in exchange for contributions. It's painful for me to know my kids will have to live forward into this horrible future, made worse because they will have the memory of this still plentiful world, where they can take long showers, have enough food to eat, knew summers that were bearable. Our species should be ashamed of itself. Ignorance is one thing; this is willful malfeasance.
17
There is no evidence that climate change will increase the rate of natural disasters. It's much more exciting (and career-enhancing---Hansen went from being an obscure scientist to a world celebrity) to predict doom, but there is no evidence for this.
Yes, it's getting warmer. It's also getting wetter (because warmer oceans evaporate more water), but not stormier (that's empirical; there is no theory).
If you don't want natural disasters, don't build in forests and chaparral where fire is part of the natural ecology, or along a hurricane coast, or in flood plains. Don't blame climate for your folly.
2
@Jonathan Katz Folly is where folly shows. There is no evidence you are taking in and digesting basic climate change science JK.
7
The article lost me when it suggested man made fires in California were attributed to climate change.
The world has been much colder before, and much warmer. Observations are that we are near a glacial minimum... There was once a kilometer of ice over most of North America. Sea levels have dramatically fallen before. The earth goes through climate cycles on a scale of geological time we humans find difficult to imagine. The sun goes through cycles as well, and increased solar activity is directly correlated with earth temperature in the relatively short period of cecades.
The oilsands of northern Alberta (where I work) and Saskatchewan were laid down 65 million years ago in a climate several degrees warmer populated by dinosaurs.
I don't deny man has had a small effect on climate, but it is foolish to suggest man can seriously reverse earth climate cycles.
Kyoto or Paris accords were plans to allow cheap carbon energy use to expand in the third world whole Western nations were forced to more expensive alternatives: essentially a mass transfer of wealth to the third world that did nothing for carbon emissions.
CO2 is not a poison, it is essential to plant and tree growth. This times article is pseudo science at best...
As always, follow the money... And lots of money pushing questionable "climate science."
3
1. In the spring we sow, in the summer we nurture....
2. I wonder why it’s so difficult to understand that smallish-looking temp changes massively change the ecosphere upon which we depend?
3. Round up the usual suspects, I guess.
4. If you really believe Co2 can’t hurt you, I have a little experiment I’d like to run. Please provide an address, and I’ll drop by with a CO2 tank, a hose, and a mask.
8
@Gordon - gee, if you mentioned the invasion of the blue-helmet World Government you'd have scored a perfect denier award.
"As always, follow the money... And lots of money pushing questionable "climate science." "
So true. People whose profits depend on continuing to promote something harmful do things like that. The Koch Brothers (heavily invested in your sand mines) and Exxon and other fossil fuel producers have a sad history of using some of their money to misinform. Sponsoring fake science meetings, buying senators and congressmen. Which is very disappointing since back in the 1970s and 80s, the scientists at Exxon and other fossil companies validated the conclusions all the other researchers arrived at regarding warming effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
Interestingly, Exxon researchers and other scientists were building on research by the Air Force, which had led to much clearer understanding of the IR wavelengths blocked by different gases. They wanted to find that out so Sidewinder missiles would be more accurate - not exactly a pinko scheme, huh?
The Navy's concerned about climate change, too. Something about their massive amounts of infrastructure at risk along coasts.
Enjoy your career in dilbit, but please don't lie about what it's doing.
8
What a joke. Scientists—all over the world—repeatedly confirm science change. Even the US Dept of Defense confirms climate change. But you believe the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry. Scientists don’t know anything—right?
7
Good. If evidence shows that climate change finally threatens Trump’s buildings he might reconsider the Paris agreement.
1
@Camille B.
Evidence shows that Mar a Lago will find itself in the middle of a Lago in the not too distant future. The Donald's not worried though. While we're dreaming, he's scheming.
1
Of all the terrible outcomes of climate change, lack of clean drinking water will be the worst. That's the point where neighbor will turn on neighbor in a fight for survival. I have little hope that U.S. politicians will act in time to prevent such a situation from happening. Catastrophe for all people everywhere.
42
I just wanted to check in and make sure that nobody has seen an actual Sharknado yet. Because at this point, nothing would surprise me.
2
In December 1980 (shortly after the presidential election) the Carter EPA issued a lengthy and detailed report on climate change, focusing heavily on the rise of sea level due to atmospheric warming. It turns out that ocean waters expand in volume as they are warmed.
All of the 1980 projections have turned out to be unduly conservative.
If memory serves correctly, a comparison was made with Venus. Due to closer proximity to the sun, Venus’s surface should be nine degrees warmer than earth. It is over 400 degrees hotter, due solely to the greenhouse gases in Venus’s atmosphere.
Those who claim—falsely—that there is no scientific evidence for atmospheric warming due to greenhouse gases, should go live on Venus—for the minute or so that would be possible.
One of the first acts of the Reagan presidency was to remove the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof. I guess we were too busy selling anti aircraft missiles to Iran to pay any attention to mere science.
61
The problem according to E. O. Wilson is that humans operate with stone age emotions in a world driven by space age technology. In other words, natural selection is too slow to keep up with technology. The result is most likely a series of disasters that could actually destroy civilization as we know it.
16
Chronic, unremitting fever in the human body leads to multiple organ failure. The earth is a body no less dependent on homeostasis than our bodies. Chronic, unremitting lying about the earth's human induced fever won't stop the warming.
6
Yes ! climate change is real and if we continue to avoid this truth , the more we sentence our grandchildren to a death sentence as the world becomes uninhabitable in the near future .
9
Scientists simply observe the creation like an ant looking out into the universe. Reducing pollution is very nice, but to actually try to convince any intelligent human being that us humans can control how that universe operates is laughable.
Its laughable and actually tragic that people refuse to anything to mitigate climate change.
4
Humans are not “controlling” anything. But the collective behavior of 7 billion souls wielding technology has serious long-term consequences. If you calculate the depth of the atmosphere and the oceans, they are but a thin membrane covering the vast surface of the planet, yet 40% of the non-polar land mass is under direct cultivation as agriculture and forestry. What is so difficult in seeing that human behavior is forcing changes in the biophysical membrane in which all life exists on this planet?
1
@William Settle
And you think that atmosphere and oceans just showed up accidentally? The power that created all everything is more than capable of running it, and our water gun approach to putting out a fire will have little effect.
GregP is dead on. Populations of other mammals periodically die-off a result of over-population.
Our brilliant president who knows more than our generals,scientists and economists denies climate change as a hoax. Trump will lie as it fits his political needs he appoints a coal lobbyist to head our EPA . Declares raking leaves would have prevented California wild fires based on what the prime minister of Finland told him which he denied telling him. The GOP who live in the past with their 80 year old white men who are not computer literate nor his our brilliant president have not kept up with science and some may still think the world is flat. Trump is a menace to the world in so many ways, supporting the killing of journalists, using the military for political stunts and destroying the role of our nation leading the world in morality. A nationalist leader destroyed Germany and our president can lead the world into nationalistic wars based on racial overtones.
8
And yet, Amazon decided to build their second headquarters in two coastal regions, rather than a more logical inland location. You cannot make this stuff up.
6
We knew this was coming in the late 70’s, if things didn’t change. My school district hosted a high school energy debate then. The cleanest and most efficient form of energy, we concluded at that time, was nuclear energy.
Where was Trump? Not in a public high school, I guess.
1
Scientists have a simple but practical way to view decisions made based on hypothesis tests: first, what is the likelihood (probability) that hypothesis A (versus the counter argument) is correct, based on the best available science. Second, what would the cost be for being wrong: if you acted as if Hypothesis A was true when it in fact wasn’t, versus the cost if you acted as if the counter argument was true, when in fact it wasn’t. If society acts as if human caused climate change is true, when it isn’t, there will be some costs of pushing for a green economy (carbon taxes funneling money into solar, wind, electric vehicles, etc.) but nothing earth shattering. If however we act as if climate change is a “hoax”, and we’re wrong, the costs of our inaction will be beyond anything human history has ever witnessed, in terms of economics, lives and biodiversity, for millennia to come. Given this, and the fact that the scientific evidence falls pretty much unanimously on the side of climate change being real, the only reasonable and conservative course of action is to act as if the scientists are correct. Why the Republicans are called the “conservative Party” is beyond me.
7
@William Settle - good points, and I'd like to add another.
Just suppose we transform our energy, transportation and building systems to renewables/power storage and much more efficiency. We wean ourselves from burning things and use power the sun ships us every single day. Our air gets clearer, our water is cleaner and we don't use so much of it for extracting pollutants, and all the nations that used their oil wealth to sponsor global trouble have to focus instead on improving their own people's lives.
Then we find out that a couple of hundred years of science, in many, many disciplines, somehow all goofed, it's magic or something that keeps Earth above freezing all these eons, not the greenhouse effect.
That's an error I could live with.
3
Recently Trump commented on the wildfires saying poor management was the cause of the fire. I suggest that people who agree with Trump take a look at an online satellite photo of the area around Paradise, Ca where the fire started and take a good look at the town itself. Google Maps will do.
There isn't a whole heck of lot of trees and many places are grassland. Firefighters mentioned that the fire moved faster in a place that had burned prior to the Camp Fire blaze.
In the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu there are scrub habitats, chaparral and scrub oaks, coyote bush, manzanita, and grasses. Academics argue if chaparral is or isn't a community that requires fire but research shows that it's bound to happen every 30 to 200 yrs. Too many fires, on the order of 20 yrs or less, can harm chaparral growth. Santa Ana driven wildfires are a part of life in S. California.
The big difference is that it burned as far north as Paradise, Ca this time of year. Look at that map in 3D and you'll see that it was driven downslope and into a fairly large town, which is now gone.
Rain is being forecast for the coast this week and that means huge quantities of mud will flow into the ocean. The kelp beds off Malibu are a fraction of their size as compared to the 1970s. Mud from a small fire near Refugio Canyon in SB County wiped out reefs nearshore as far as five miles from the fire. This time it'll be worse and those kelp beds will have to be replanted if they're going to return.
11
If the sea level by 2100, is more than 3 feet above the current sea level, a few thousand desperate asylum seekers now, will be insignificant, compared to the tens of millions of people world wide, who will be displaced from their homes.
We know extreme weather events are becoming more extreme. In 2015 it was noted that 14 of the 15 hottest years recorded have all been in the 21st century. The UN climate experts have an expectation that global warming will continue “given that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increasing heat content of the oceans are committing us to a warmer future.”
Glaciers worldwide are in retreat. We can actually observe the changing climate, yet many who profit from extracting and using fossil fuels, keep muddying the waters.
The same tactics used by the tobacco industry where doubt was their defence, is now being used to question global warming/climate change.
We treat our planet as a dump for our carbon emissions, and our planet does not like it. How hard is it to acknowledge we need to lower our carbon emissions and better look after the only planet we have?
27
@Barry of Nambucca
Not only the same tactics, the same people using those tactics.
1
This much science really, really knows a lot about from the historic and current data: our global climate is actively being perturbed and is changing geographically and dynamically. And during most of human history, weather has been been quite stable. Humans have mostly taken weather stability for granted and mostly continue to do so. That's why we are going to suffer a lot because ignorant forces in society, some with a lot of power, don't believe that climate change is cause for worry and for mitigating action.
Not nearly enough is being done to deal with the causes of climate change, let alone the obvious effects.
10
@Emergence
The primary cause of the California wildfires has to do with 40 years of fire suppression. The drought at the turn of the twentieth century was more severe and lasted longer than the current drought. It is aggravated by population growth and no investment in water infrastructure in 50 years.
Coastal flooding is not the result of more severe weather events. It is not the consequence of oceans rising. It is the consequence of normal land subsidence, which is aggravated by increased pumping out of shallow aquifers. Man made structures intended to protect against beach erosion accelerate increase beach erosion in nearby areas. Add to it that federally subsidized flood insurance encourages overbuilding in vulnerable areas and poor land use and the cost of storms explodes. the frequency and severity of hurricanes making landfall in the US is at a 20 year low.
If the intellectuals are right, why is Amazon investing in coastal areas rather than inland?
3
Thanks for your nite, @ebmem. I wrote the story. As my colleague Kendra Pierre-Louis writes, climate change is inextricably linked to the California wildfires. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/climate/why-california-fires.html
7
Forecasting is problematic. It's based upon both empirical data and relevant scientific knowledge. Since most of what we might face will be the first time since humans began recording their experiences there will be surprises. It also makes the forecasting a set of risks that this or that will happen. This lack of certainty assures that many people are going to resist changing their ways and spending their money on trying to forestall things that have not happened.
Eventually, there will be a consensus that the extreme possibilities are too dire to not act to forestall them, but the question is when and how much suffering will be experienced before that happens.
6
@Casual Observer. Excess CO2 instantly causes 'global warming' through a 'top-of-atmosphere radiative energy imbalance'. But the 'climate change' consequences come decades later, because they all must wait for the oceans to heat up, and the oceans have a huge resistance to heating related to their mass and heat capacitance. The problem, of course, is once the consequences appear, the only way to make them disappear is to cool the oceans back down again, a process that would similarly take decades-to-centuries to accomplish with current technology. We must somehow take action on scientific faith before the consequences show up. And, as you relate, that seems unlikely to happen due to human nature. We're an 'unstoppable force' that's about to meet its 'immovable object'.
8
Missing from this excellent analysis is mention of the catastrophic feedback loop our climate warming actions have created. This is intensifying, and will further intensify, future warming. Input and output in any complex system is non-linear. I fear that the future climate change may be worse than our wildest predictions.
9
@Tiger shark
China will add more CO2 to the atmosphere between 2016 and 2030 than mankind has added since the inception of the industrial revolution. That does not include the coal fired plants they are building in Africa, Europe and the rest of Asia.
3
@Tiger shark Yes, our own U.S. Global Change Research Program has been emphasizing that "There is a Significant Possibility for Unanticipated Changes" as published in the their recent Climate Science Special Report in the Executive Summary conclusion (& related Chapter15 with many more details) at: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/#section-7. The conclusion said "Humanity’s effect on the Earth system, through the large-scale combustion of fossil fuels and widespread deforestation and the resulting release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, as well as through emissions of other greenhouse gases and radiatively active substances from human activities, is unprecedented. There is significant potential for humanity’s effect on the planet to result in unanticipated surprises and a broad consensus that the further and faster the Earth system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk of such surprises. There are at least two types of potential surprises: compound events, where multiple extreme climate events occur simultaneously or sequentially (creating greater overall impact), and critical threshold or tipping point events, where some threshold is crossed in the climate system (that leads to large impacts). The probability of such surprises—some of which may be abrupt and/or irreversible—as well as other more predictable but difficult-to-manage impacts, increases as the influence of human activities on the climate system increases."
4
@ebmem that is really, really hard to believe.
1
I THINK humans are the cause of climate change; but it is NOT A FACT. We do not have causality established [probably never can], only models that SEEM to correlate the excessive use of resources with climate change.
Those who speak of 'renewable' energy - solar, wind, even hydro, neglect the effects of the building of those facilities - solar uses toxic materials [how will they be disposed] and other than roofs will affect the ecosystem [by keeping 'heat' away from the soil], wind uses huge amounts of concrete and metal [disposal?, and energy cost of the concrete], and hydro destroys the environment too [three gorges etc]. And if you have storage based on chemical batteries there is another disposal problem.
The true solution is to REDUCE - REUSE.
I hope when the next 'BIG ONE' hits California we dont attribute it to climate change.
1
@Tamza "We do not have causality established"
Thanks for the Monday laugh. Theory, experiment and models all agree and point the finger at our activity.
The greenhouse effect - gases in the atmosphere absorbing infrared light - was first proved in laboratory experiments over 100 years ago. Look up John Tyndall's 1861 paper "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction."
But that's just in the lab, you'll say. Well, the increase in warming from atmospheric CO2 over a decade was measured on the ground, in Alaska and Oklahoma.
""We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper."
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
As for Reduce, Reuse, yes, that's part of it, too. But energy use is part of human society since we first figured dogs and horses could pull things. And as for the materials in solar panels and batteries - Recycle and Reuse.
10
@Tamza
It is not what you or I think that matters. Science now know the following as historical facts, not projections:
1. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We learned this over 100 years ago.
2. 800,000 years of careful analysis of ice cores done by multiple peer reviewed studies show the CO2 level, while fluctuating in sync with global temperature, (again from studies of pollen in the cores) never went above 350ppm. It is now over 400ppm and that has happened in only in the 150 years. (One must go back 60,000,000 years to dinosaur times to see it that high)
3. World wide the hottest years on human scale records, have been in the last few dozen years.
4. The glaciers are melting and oceans are rising. ( If you want to see the snows of Kilimanjaro I would not delay).
Catch a clue..........I may think that it is possible that I can resist gravity, but reality ultimately dictates outcomes. Science rules. We must reduce our carbon and methane emissions (and sadly begin to consider risky geo-engineering).
9
Which experiments do you refer to?
Every day that Trump remains in office (in alliance with his many powerful cohorts) prolongs any remote hope for mitigating the increasingly-disastrous effects of climate change. We've known about this phenomenon for many decades and yet too many powerful entities have continually obstructed any substantive progress. Although there are many very important issues facing the world at this point, NOTHING is as critical to our survival as saving the planet.
35
@Susan L.
Explain what Obama did to reduce greenhouse gases during his eight years in office? No bills made it to his desk during the two years with a Democrat Congress, and nothing happened during the four years with a divided Congress. During his last two years in office, he imposed the Clean Power Plan, which was stopped from implementation by the federal courts because it violates the Clean Air Act. During his last two months, after Trump won the election, he attempted to cram down new CAFE standards eighteen months ahead of schedule.
Before you blame problems on Trump, consider that even if he were a magician, he couldn't fix problems created by Obama.
Obama and Democrats did NOTHING.
@ebmem Your facts are incorrect. Obama adopted the California clean car standards asl the new national standard.
4
@ebmem
Obama negotiated with China to get China to sign onto the Paris Accords, which was huge, and led the way for much of the third world to sign on, and signed the US onto the Paris Accords. He appointed responsible people to the Energy Department and the EPA.
Insufficient does not equal nothing.
2
Are there really more simultaneous disasters today or is there just more news coverage than there was 20 or 30 years ago? Everything that happens now seems to be magnified by the 24 hour cable news and social media.
6
@Aaron Adams, there are more - more annual storms that used to be 100 year storms, more heating events where there used to be none. This is real. It's actually happening. Maybe we're getting more visibility, but I think there's even more that we're NOT seeing because it doesn't sell as well as fighting over our childish fixations on gender, sexual preference, skin color, etc.
7
I bet I know which 24-hour "news" channel you're watching...
6
@Aaron Adams, There is far more coverage of every 'disaster'.
3
I miss the good old days when we had four distinct seasons .
Climate change has created an indistinctiness between seasons with hot months prevailing over colder ones .
Drought is often prevailing over rainy seasons in a capricious way , often catapulting seasons in a disorganized manner .
Feel sad and sorry for Californians , who deserve and need immediate help from an absent Federal Government.
14
@Inter nos, Look at the records from fifty years ago. The same 60F temps in February, the same variable rainfall. About the only thing is later snowfall-- soon to be remedied.
What help is California being denied by the Federal Government?
2
@Ryan:
One more person that is challenged by the concept of the difference between weather and climate. . . Across much of the US, winter has "shrunk" by nearly a month.
1
So easy to make dire predictions 81 years into the future when none of these 'forecasters' will be around to be ridiculed.
Not factored in here are inventions not yet invented that will be implemented IF all these predictions are valid.
4
@Tuco - Innovations that will save us? You mean like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars? Good news, they already exist, so start using them!
58
@Tuco Extreme weather, be they great droughts, wildfires, super-hurricanes and sea rise, are already here, or haven't you noticed? Your faith in inventions coming to save the day is naïve. Why not try cutting unnecessary use of fossil fuels to reduce the danger? Like shutting down coal-fired power plants and making SUVs and other guzzlers unmarketable by hiking the price of gasoline through a carbon tax and/or tighter fuel efficiency standards? Improving and expanding public transit?
26
@tuco I was thinking the same thing. We must seek to geo-engineer our way around this catastrophe rather than spending all our energy on futilely trying to prevent it. We’re not going to limit warming by having international meetings about it
2
It is not often that the “cure” is so positive. Renewable energy will enhance the quality of our lives and reduce energy costs. Other steps for a clean environment will also bring improve public health and safety. We are all already paying for global warming. Insurance is a pool, so when someone’s house, boat or vehicle burns, gets flooded or blown away, our premiums go up - and up - and up.
11
I’m kind of like a broken record on this, but I’ll ask the rhetorical question again; when will people in fire-prone areas stop building with wood and start building with fire-resistant materials like concrete? Especially more wealthy people who can afford to?
9
@Jim: 1849 is when California's gold rush happened. Most of the houses in this area are decades old, if not centuries. Your's is a good suggestion for new housing, but many in the foothills are not wealthy, inherited their homes from happier times. Their forefathers built at a time when 1) the soil was cooler and more capable of retaining moisture, 2) the snow season was longer and rain didn't immediately run off, 3) the Santa Ana winds were slower, not driven into a frenzy by higher moisture levels overall, 4) the jet stream was stronger, and not pushed completely around the US West, carrying its payload of moisture with it.
12
@Jim: Buildings made of bricks or cinder blocks do not resist earthquakes as well as wooden ones.
I don't know enough about housing construction to write about concrete.
@Jim while concrete is better at resisting fires, it's still much costlier to build a concrete house than a wood framed one. Even in a fire-prone area, it's hard to justify the up-front cost, which is also no guarantee of safety during another wildfire.
1
While climate change might be a factor in drought, the deaths in Paradise were caused by locally preventable problems. First, the region was overdeveloped. Second, there was insufficient egress highways to handle the evacuation traffic. Third, there was not a sufficient system to identify the danger and alert all citizens. And fourth, the fire was likely started due to the negligence of a utility company.
It is becoming all too easy to blame global warming for many problems that can and should be preventable.
7
@Jeff
First, Paradise CA was founed in 1877. It incorporated in 1979. In 2008, the number of people living there was only about 500 less than there were when this fire occurred. In 2008, there was a campfire that went out of control and swept through the area where at least 9 thousand people were successfully evacuated, but in 2008 the fire failed to cross Feather River.
THIS TIME IT DID CROSS THE RIVER.
Ask yourself why it did, and when you do, you should look at the Climate Data for the last 50 years or so.
PS: It's called climate change. Keep up.
58
@Jeff, Another NY know-it-all. Didn't you learn anything from Sandy?
4
So when will one of these articles discuss what the fate of the planet will be if we do everything we need to do to fight climate change, but do nothing about the rapid and unsustainable gains in populations in many areas of the world? You do realize it is the out of control population growth that is the real threat to future generations. Get the temperature down but not the population growth and we still self destruct in less than 100 years. All the effort seems to be in developed nations and focused on climate. 6 Billion more people born in the next 30 years will make it all moot.
111
@GregP
Wars and epidemics used to help contain population growth but now those unhappy events are cured and eliminated. Most of these problems cited as damaging effects of global warming are actually a result of over population. People wouldn't be building on the coasts if it weren't for population pressures, or in other hazardous locations subject to natural disasters.
17
@GregP,
Greg, every time one of "these articles" comes out, there are numerous comments like yours about population.
The problem is to distinguish between sincere concern and propaganda, often tinged with racism, something like... "hah, liberals, why don't you get those black and brown people to stop reproducing".
The only people not engaging in efforts to ameliorate the population problem are Republicans and their fellow-travelers in the world-- Saudis and Russians and so on, who want women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and have lots of workers and consumers and cannon-fodder. Even China, which had the one-child policy, is trying to increase fertility in some groups of women.
What exactly would you like the US government to do that hasn't been part of standard policy when Democrats have some control? It's not Dems who defund Planned Parenthood and cut foreign aid directed at empowering women, and try to deny birth control here in the USA.
99
@GregP,
Population is the one issue that is truly “do-able”. Steps:
a) start talking about it as a crucial issue
b) start talking about having one child, this will of course bring up China. I’m not talking about that; I’m talking: peer pressure in having a true on-going public discussion. I’m talking about tax breaks for people with one child
c) quit obsessing about abortion: talk contraceptives.
d) publicly criticize the Catholic Church for opposition to contraceptives. When it doesn’t change; remind them about the increase in abortions they cause.
e) ask people who think population is not an issue; what is your plan?
f) the issue of population needs to be confronted.
44
Bringing this country around to thinking 180 (a little over two Trump lifespans) years into the future will be a daunting task. Made all the harder by a President that can't see past the next news cycle or rally.
32
@richard wiesner; the horrible beauty of this situation is that it won't need to be 180 years in the future. This is within our lifetimes. This is an "our children" catastrophe, at best.
9
@richard wiesner
We don't have 180 years. I'd agree we need to make a 180 degree turn.
We have less than 10 to make major changes in how we consume: circular economy, less waste. Exporting our pollution and getting ever new toys, while magic thinking about some tech solution in the future isn't going to cut it.
By 2040, we will be well and truly in obvious disaster territory. We're there now, for those with eyes to see.
8
Everytime you shop you pollute, so please become a wiser shopper. Make small conscious decisions that reduce your carbon footprint. Every small step adds up to a larger change.
69
@Norway
Economic growth generally means temperature rise, pollution, later death. International trade is more of the same. Picking up plastic with trucks, shipping it to China to be transformed into different plastic toys which are shipped back to die in landfills or be recycled again, using coal for industry and diesel and bunker oil for shipping is not wise nor economically sensible. The trade war with China is perhaps the only thing I agree with Trump on, but not for the same reasons.
13
Humans did cause the California fire. Humans neglected the forest and if you leave underbrush, dead trees and lots of leaves it is a receipt for disaster because of any spark, lightening strike or cigarette. It wasn't climate change, he was human neglect.
3
@Tony J Mann
The biggest factors by far in these unprecedented fires is climate and weather. By far. Not the amount of fuel, but the temperature and moisture in the fuel.
The weather this fall has been unusually warm and dry in northern CA. I took the kids trick-or-treating this year in a tee-shirt for the first time. Ever. It is usually cooler than it has been lately.
The Camp Fire in Paradise (Northern CA) occurred almost 6 weeks into the rainy season, but there has been no rain. The Paradise area has had 2.5% of the normal rainfall to date. Had the fuel been wetter and cooler, the outcome of this fire would barely have been noticed.
48
@Tony J Mann
Humans have been leaving underbrush, dead trees, and lots of leaves around for a very long time. So why only now is the failure to manicure forests a problem?
10
@Tony J Mann
Paradise did, in fact, clear that out a few years ago. The new growth that resulted was lower, denser, and scrubbier, and made the fire worse.
Raking the forest floor doesn't solve the problem.
Also, there were many factors that made the fire so bad. Climate change wasn't the only factor, but it sure was important. There had been no rain for 211 days when and where the fire hit.
5
The universe hardly needs humanity’s tribalism and hate. Glad we are running ourselves into the ground
12
Absurd, and pseudo-scientific to be charitable. The current state of the art of "climate change science" has shown zero ability to make meaningful predictions about climate change 8 years into the future, to say nothing of 80 years into the future.
6
@hula hoop
Sorry to say it but you are wrong. I suggest you spend the Thanksgiving weekend actually reading the scientific literature. The predictions (forecasts) that climate scientists have been making are proving to be too conservative, in other words, we are in trouble. Raking leaves won't fix it.
14
@hula hoop Try backing that up with actual data and getting it published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal - good luck.
10
@hula hoop
The extreme weather events that the world has been experiencing lately were predicted by climate scientists 30 year ago.
And, to notice that climate change has happened and is happening, all you have to do is look at the temperature trends over the last century. You don't need to rely on predictions... just look at what we have already measured.
Also, besides the daytime high temperatures being higher than normal in the last 3 decades, its the night time low temps that tell the real story as it relates to wildfires. The general public haven't heard much about this.
When the low temps don't get down to dew point at night, the fuel on the forest floor stays dry. It also doesn't get the benefit of the cooling effect when the dew evaporates after sunrise. Without the dampness of the dew, and the cooling of the evaporation, forest fuel that is already warm and dry from years of drought and the increased temperatures from global warming, it just gets warmer and drier. Paradise California was an unprecedented tinderbox.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/extreme-overnight-heat-california-and-great-basin-july-2018
13
That climate change is man-made, and responsible for destroying our environment, by the increase in frequency and severity of natural phenomena (droughts, foloods, fires).has been shown to be a fact, incontrovertible; as to why our current pseudo-leaders (republicans, all) continue to deny the science of it, is shrouded in deep mystery...unless we think there is willful denial cloaked in malevolence. The only remedy for these ossified minds, harboring deep conflicts of interest guided by avarice, is their ouster from the current government, where they are exercising unrestricted power...tyo abuse it for self-enrichment. We are living a world-wide crisis created by Trump and his minions. When are we going to wake up, and say Enough Already?
27
@manfred marcus
It's not a mystery.
Coal and oil barons don't want any government action that will slow down the burning of fossil fuels, as that would make them less rich. Via campaign contribution, lobbying, social media trolls, think tanks, and other sources, they have a powerful influence on certain politicians.
As for the damage to the planet, ourselves, and our descendants?
They just don't care.
11
@manfred marcus, What about that 10 year period without, not many, hurricanes?
As a heavily punished taxpayer with sufficient income to remain in the imaginary middle class but lacking enough to have hedge funds and shelters to avoid paying tax, I am resentful. First, of a government that has the official policy that there is no manmade climate change. Second, of the idiotic choices countless millions of my fellow citizens make to live in disaster-prone areas or even to purchase speculative real estate in those areas for monetary gain. Why should I be asked to indemnify their bad judgments and my revenue contribute to rebuilding and relief again and again?
17
I have read that many of the low-lying Pacific Islands that have already been abandoned due to rising sea level was not due to the island being "submerged," but rather by salt water seeping into and contaminating drinking water wells.
It makes me wonder if any consideration has been given to this potential problem here on congested, suburban Long Island (with population in the millions), which is likewise an island where the water supply comes from groundwater wells.
8
@Dan88
It's going to be a problem in Florida, first. Much of the state is made of porous limestone.
8
@Dan88 - the place that really has to worry about that is Florida. Removing water faster than it could replenish started the problem, sea level rise will exacerbate it. People who resist decarbonizing our economy don't appreciate how much spending they doom us to. "We'll adapt" they say. As if serious infrastructure repair is free.
"Decades of too much pumping and draining to provide both drinking water and flood control leave South Florida susceptible to “saltwater intrusion” – when the ocean moves in and contaminates underground freshwater sources.
Now in some of South Florida’s most vulnerable spots, sea-level rise is expected to push that underground line of saltwater inland at twice the rate it would otherwise move, according to U.S. Geological Survey projections.
Facing this growing threat requires investing in costly alternative water supplies and making better use of the freshwater sources we often take for granted.
Cities from Miami to Fort Lauderdale to Jupiter already sit within or near the line of saltwater pushing farther inland into the Biscayne Aquifer, which most communities rely on for drinking water."
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article212844644.html
9
@b fagan & Dan Zerkle: So I imagine Georgia should expect a caravan of migrants from the south at some point in the future...
2
I hope that when Trump visited California this last week he gave Governor Brown an earful. The Governor has made a big deal of running the opposite direction of Trump on Climate Change. But whether Trump or Brown is right or wrong about Climate Change is not the issue.
How many $millions has the Governor and California committed to combating climate change (and teaming up with China on it) to the exclusion of doing the real work - apolitical work - on the ground of preventing the tragedy that unfolded in Paradise and elsewhere in the state?
Are zoning laws being addressed? How many homes continue to be built in, and town and city boundaries expanded into, these tinder-dry, wind-blown draws? Are environmental laws preventing California from implementing zoning that requires significant fire buffers and controlled burning in high-risk areas?
I really do hope Trump fed Brown the riot act. Climate Change may be a great political topic in a liberal state, but spending $billions to keep the temp from rising a couple degrees over the next 100 years does NOTHING to prevent California forest wild fires.
1
@smacc1
Actually, it would help reduce the impacts of just about every extreme event. Ask the firefighters. The biggest factor in these fires is weather and climate, not fuel. If the area had received the normal rainfall to date and the temperatures were normal (relative to 20th century temps), the Paradise fire would have been minimal.
7
@smacc1
Absorbing and dealing with the damage is a lot more expensive than preventing it by burning less carbon. How much does a single hurricane or wildfire cost? We're having a lot of bad ones, and it's going to keep getting worse.
It's not an either/or situation. The climate is already damaged, but it will keep getting worse unless we stop dumping so much carbon into the atmosphere. Even the Trump administration predicts a seven-degree temperature rise by the end of the century. That's enough to melt the Greenland ice cap and put a whole lot of cities underwater.
However, since the damage is already happening, we need to deal with it. That means fire, flood, famine, disease, and drought mitigation.
7
@smacc1
You are blaming the victims just like your boy Trump. I hope you don't vote.
6
"Since it is a review of papers, it will reflect some of the potential biases of science in this area, which include the possibility that scientists might focus on negative effects more than positive ones; there is also a margin of uncertainty involved in discerning the imprint of climate change from natural variability."
1
@Qxt63 That's what actual scientists do. They acknowledge potential flaws in the data while stating the overall trends supported by a mountain of evidence.
But hey, it's your tax money. If you want to give up more and more of it to handle problems in the future that are preventable in the present, don't complain later. You had a chance to work towards that prevention and couldn't be bothered.
13
@Qxt63
Except real science isn’t biased, that’s why it’s science. It’s unlike climate deniers ideas that are based on anti science and ignorance.
8
The human race is doomed. We cannot adapt quickly enough to the changes being wrought by climate change. Even lowering the rate of carbon emissions may beyond our ability to mitigate. Its like a ball rolling down a hill and once the ball starts rolling it is virtually impossible to stop. We are killing off the flora and fauna at an unacceptable rate. We really don't know if we have broken a link in the food chain that will spell disaster for food supplies. We are fishing out the oceans, destroying coral reefs, depleting the kelp beds off California and melting the habitat for species. Been nice to know ya!
129
@JWalfish
Homo sapiens is the only species whose population is not presently controlled. It would be very difficult, and probably impossible, to control our population ourselves and to control our use and destruction of our resources, but these will eventually be "regulated" by natural or man-made causes, despite our technological house of cards. So much for all the talk about wanting our grandchildren to have a better life.
5
@JWalfish. The meat, fish, poultry and dairy industries are the biggest causes of methane and other toxic horror stories. The water pollution of the animal industry is as bad as the air pollution.
5
@JWalfish
Maybe the intelligent life form on Earth are the social insects. Particularly ants and termites.
5
This administration and the fossil-burning industry it supports is killing us, our children, their children, their children ....
132
You think this just happened under Trump’s watch?
7
@Jeff Watts sad that people are not more informed than his person.
8
And so are Trump’s supporters who continue to deny climate change.
5
Unfortunately the people who most need to read this won't.
176
@pealass Republicans.
4
@pealass
They don't care what this says. Trump is about to appoint a coal industry lobbyist USEPA Administrator.
5
Come on it's so far off in time,
And profits from Oil are sublime,
Trump says it's a hoax
And he don't make jokes,
If true it's all a "bleeding shime".
Hedge fund brokers do have mixed views
And 'climate change' is so abstruse,
The Stock Market's strong
And what if they're wrong,
To our funds a bigly abuse.
45
@Larry Eisenberg
So abstruse.
As to cook our goose.
14
A lot of climate researchers owe their entire livelihood to climate change, at least we should feel grateful for that. If not for climate change the same might have only to spending their time cleaning forest floors in California, just like they do in Finland.
1
@John Doe YES - just like the military-industrial complex will ALWAYS find reasons for going to war, the climate scientists will keep this going. Make models, and predict. Past is no guarantee of future performance. Models are 'by definition' built on theoretical 'concepts' and fitted to past data. Future outcomes will not necessarily fit past data. Believe me I have done lots of modeling [not the fashion kind] - and when you look at the projections based on models very rarely does the outcome match the projections.
@John Doe; Dear Doe, have you ever been to California? In SoCali our hills and canyons are; One, covered with brush called "chaparral". Two, often times extremely steep. Three, are triggered by fire for regrowth. I could go on about the differences between Finland and California but it would only add to your confusion.
5
@John Doe
Haha, yes the "raking the forest floor" fake news from Trump.
If you could rake the entire forest floor in California, I wonder how big a pile of leaves it could generate?
Should make for a good amusement park attraction, build a tower, then have people jump off into the leaves.
3