A good overview of global changes but perhaps all the fires in Australia and water shortages could also be included.
2
It is very easy for Dr. Taalas said to say; “The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry and transportation,” However I don't know if he or any of the politicians that push for this have any idea of the radical impact this would have on everybody's everyday life.
Don't get me wrong, I think reducing our carbon footprint is not a bad idea, but if we eliminate all fossil fuels, this means no natural gas or oil to heat our homes, no gas or diesel cars, trucks, planes or trains. A majority of our electric grid will be lost with Nuclear the only 24/7 base load source. Wind and solar are great, but we can't count on them when it is dark and there is no wind, or too much wind. Think about how many times a day would be acceptable to loose you electric power with no idea when it will come back on.
What we really need is an intelligent transition plan that includes adapting to the changes that will be coming, because we either can't or won't stop the use of all fossil fuels in the near future without freezing to death.
10
You know, the climate section is pretty amusing. Day after day warnings of the apocalypse, and you get 50-250 comments, basically from the same group of alarmists who scream we're all going to die but have probably never done any independent research on the topic. While wacky op-ed page articles can get 10x that.
Maybe the climate section in the Times could be improved by more rational articles that discuss the evidence, the models, the research in more moderate tones, perhaps even invite some scientists (climate or otherwise) to discuss the research, methods, etc., you know -- bring a little balance. That might in fact work out better if you are trying to sway people on the issue. Right now, this section is like a Baptist (pick a religion) revival -- hellfire and damnation await you if you don't believe. Please. We're not all gonna die in 12 years or 50 or 100 -- unless an asteroid hits.
8
You want to have a serious discussion about climate change, yet show a picture of Santa Barbara CA burning? More than 50% of the CA fires are started by careless humans, the remainder are caused by fire hazards near power lines. All this in a state that has a population it cannot sustain, little water (although it takes forever for government to limit usage), and is, for the most part a desert environment.
The earth is getting more polluted by the minute. The root cause is not CO2, but over-population in areas that couldn't sustain the existing population. Over-population in China, India, Africa as a whole results in destruction of forests, over-use of lands with limited top soil, pollution of waterways and over-use of aquifers, not to mention lax to absent regulations. Plastics alone will choke us all, but states just do stupid things like outlaw plastic straws, charge for grocery bags, and salivate at the idea of more income via cap and trade. Just look at the packaging on everything you buy?!
If we do not address population, we cannot address climate change, pollution, or the destruction of our ecosystem.
7
@Ma, um, no, CO2 is absolutely the biggest problem by far. Pollution levels of other materials can be reduced but we have no practical way to reduce CO2 levels to 280 ppm where it should be. Resulting climate change will soon reach levels where positive feedbacks take control out of our hands, just like what has happened numerous times before in the Earth's history.
4
Here's a question. Do the Times Climate writes just take dictation, or do they ask probing questions of the scientists and politicians who come out with these unsubstantiated proclamations?
4
One of the transformational ways to deal with the enormous financial costs of a runaway climate catastrophe is to ask the hard questions about money creation as is being done mostly by grassroots groups in the US, UK, the Netherlands. Let’s hope that Governor Carney of the Bank of England who will assume in January 2020 his new role as U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance will seriously explore this money creation issue as part of his “new, sustainable financial system to stop runaway climate change”.
However, money creation issues have to be connected with the larger unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system and transform that system. This connection is made in Verhagen 2012"The Tierra Solution: Resolving the Climate Crisis through Monetary Transformation" where the commercial, intellectual, ecological and strategic dimensions of a carbon-based international monetary system are seminally presented. Such system is based upon the monetary carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person with its associated balance of payments system that incorporates both financial and climate credits and debts. States an outstanding economics author and climate specialist about this approach: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
The worst thing to ever happen to this beautiful blue planet in the Milky Way is the rise of human beings, pathetic as we are in our greed and inability to look the truth in the face.
8
@EDC poor you. I think humans are pretty cool. You know, rather be a human than say, a termite. Or just about anything else.
2
In sum, by 2100, sea levels will rise by two feet and temperatures will rise by 6 degrees F under the best of circumstances. If things continue to go wrong, and the Antarctic ice sheet melts, sea levels could rise by six feet and temperatures by 10 degrees. And in the far future, if things really go wrong, sea level could rise by 220 feet and the temperature -- who knows?
I hear that it's nice on Mars this time of year, but water could be a problem. And air.
3
Other animal species have become extinct without understanding what was happening to them and without blame.
Human animals, with full knowledge, will continue to destroy their only home way beyond the tipping point which may be where we are now.
It seems as if the emergence of the human brain foretold, from the beginning, the tragedy that would befall the earth. I doubt that anything will be able to rewrite this very unhappy ending.
8
Could we all just agree that using Celsius is an obstacle to getting our message to most Americans? I travel, so flipping back and forth isn't a problem for me, but most people don't get it and dismiss the whole thing as scientific mumbo jumbo.
In the 70's, the US was going to convert to metric, but with howls of indignation, our government gave it up.
4
@Terry Lowman -- there are actually two parts of mentioning temperature goals and targets that can confuse people here. The first one is correct, people underestimate because they don't think in °C
So trying to limit global heating to 2°C means 3.6°F
The second, also very serious, way we underestimate is that the "global" numbers include the ocean, which warms more slowly.
So global rate of increase since 1954 has been 2.6°F.
The rate of increase for land only has been 4.3°F
But the northern hemisphere is warming more, so the rate on land there has been over 4.6°F per century.
In short, we discount two ways when considering those global, Celsius numbers. It's getting hotter than we think.
6
@Terry Lowman, this is a perfect time for Americans to become acquainted with the same units the rest of the world uses. Average Global Temperature is not a measurement that has any human connection anyway, over time it's just an indication that a global heat imbalance is present. We are headed for several degrees of that value and the end result is going to be much the same, be it °C or °F. It seems to me your question points to a general lack of science education, not just the ability to convert units. This issue is far too complicated for the average person to judge without that - we must collectively learn to accept expert majority opinion, which is this case is very clear.
1
Trump the hydrocarbon hegemon became president at a critical time. In this case to help turn climate change into a bringer of environmental disaster. The hydrocarbon revolution ushered in the marvels of todays world of technological wonders and conveniences. Now perhaps the bringer of plagues, wars and famines.
2
Guilt and sadness won't get us very far. The Earth can support maybe 4 billion happy self-indulgent humans. Everybody wants security, comfort, a little luxury. Right now 2 billion need to be consuming more to live decently. We are headed towards 10 billion. We get where we need to be by conscious efforts such as free contraception or we get there by disease and mass starvation. I hope we choose the former. Donate more time and money on the 2000 elections than you can afford.
3
When does this become a crime against humanity? You can imagine Bolsonaro declaring "War on Life Itself" a la Dubya.
Neither Times editorial writers, nor political leaders, nor most of the scientists who have unquestionably established the ongoing climate disaster have the nerve to state the obvious. Ignorant voters have elected ignorant, or spineless, leaders. The most stupid and least educated Americans have elected comparably stupid leadership. This debate is not about competing scientific theories. It is about science v. ignorance and religious insanity. If Americans have not accepted man influenced climate change by now they will not in the foreseeable future.
10
@Disillusioned Sorry disillusioned -- are you a scientist? I think not as most real scientists would use the term 'unquestionably established" in any context re a theory.
3
The Earth is like a car with the windows closed in direct sun on a hot summer day.
The truth (near term extinction regardless what we belatedly get round to doing) has become so horrible, no politician dares acknowledge it. Those with any remaining conscience, when they speak, appear so clearly to be hedging and prevaricating that they garner no trust. Challenge them in the direction of what is happening and they are open to caricature and parody by the right. So we are left with sociopaths like Trump, who can lie shamelessly and appear at least resolute.
3
Want to solve this problem? If so then you need to take a closer look at the real cause, and there is only one! Now, take a deep breath. The only cause of global warming is SEX. Yes! The procreation needs of the human animal have increased the populations to the point that we are overconsuming the food supply while at the same time we are transferring the CO2 storage points, like forests, into houses and more agricultural facilities. So, what is the proper fix? Well the only solution is to immediately restrict population growth and then to reduce the world population to 1/2 of what it is today within the next 3 decades, that is if we would like to have a planet left to support those who would be around after this fix. Are you ready to stop having children and grandchildren? If not, then you are the cause of the problems they will all face.
3
Malarkey, as Joe the enforcer would say (don't mess with Burisma and my son's millions)
OK if we're accelerating how come:
-- Contiguous US max recorded temps are below avg for the 1st ten months in 2019
-- no increase in tornadoes
-- hurricane season was just around average for the last 160 years
--wildfires in CA, is that really climate change or bad decisions and mismanagement -I think it isn't CC
But the warming narrative does two things: Progs can use it to push their agenda, and pols can blame anything bad they want on it. Over spend your budget, had toi, climate change. Not my fault, an act of you know who.
1
What a bunch.of manipulating deceivers.
1
As the effects of climate change grow and become more obvious to even the least informed, our commitment to addressing it seems to be withering. I believe that tells you all that you need to know about how all of this will turn out in the end.
People should at least feel some pity for those who will follow us and look back in horror at our total disregard for their future.
2
Irreversible?
Nonsense!
That's what the dinosaurs thought.
No, eventually enough humans will die from starvation, fires and floods, revolutions and regional conflicts over resources, that the number of us will fall below the replacement rate for the greenhouse gases we produce.
And everything will become hunky dory and we will restart the process again.
Right now we are experiencing positive feedbacks. For instance, the more we heat the planet, the more ice melts, the reflective white is replace with absorptive dark blue causing temperature increase, which melts more ice...and so forth.
But, as population and civilization plummet, luxuries like airplane travel, industrial expansion, and modern healthcare will become unsustainable and grassy cemeteries will replace asphalt and concrete.
Negative feedback.
So look at the bright side of all this.
Irreversible?
Hardly.
Unpleasant?
Probably.
1
In the late sixties scientists, and many of their media supporters, told us that by the end of the century over two-thirds of the world would be starving, food riots everywhere. Humanity was doomed unless we severely regulated population growth. Hmmmm, scientists are often wrong with the magnitude of their predictions. The planet we occupy is made of of rocks, dirt and water - in a hundred thousand years it will be made of of rocks, dirt and water. Our species may, and probably will, disappear or change radically, but the "planet" goes on, undisturbed and uncaring.
2
There is a major obstacle to reducing greenhouse gases. As armchair pro-environmentalists, we express our dismay with what is happening with climate change. However, we're unwilling to lower the temperatures in our homes here in the northeast to let's say, 48 degrees, during the winter. In colonial times, before there were fossil fuels, the average indoor temperature inside of people's homes in Massachusetts was just above freezing. And I doubt that the people in southern states will go without 24/7 air conditioning during the blazing hot summers. No wonder that the southwest was sparsely populated before there was AC. In a nutshell, we are unwilling to give up certain things that require significant personal sacrifices, and we justify this in many ways, expecting that something or someone can solve the problem. Well, guess what. You are part of the problem. To express this in a more personal way, shut up or put up.
2
My son told me to never ever mention climate change around his wife. It makes her too despondent to think about how the world will be when their two-year-old son is an adult. He is so innocent when you look at him it truly makes me cry.
72
The climate emergency is upon us. Rational and extraordinary measures are required now. A green new deal. Our way of life and carbon footprint will need drastic reduction in (hopefully) measured and compassionate ways
Instead our collective denial and governmental gridlock may doom us. Our response to the crisis will be delayed and weak. That will be followed by drastic reductions mired in chaos and immense human suffering.
Green new deal now.
3
We shouldn't focus so much on the symptoms of the global plague of plagues we are experiencing. It wastes all our energy on the anguish we experience, doing nothing at all about the common cause.
The common cause of our escalating crises around the world is our own escalating economic demand for services from nature and societies around the world to produce "growth," the world economy's one driving common purpose.
If we leave that out of our solutions we'll just repeat what the Romans did, drive their world to exhaustion, and disappear.
1
We have less than twelve years to turn the climate ship around and there is no possibility of happening without massive changes in the way we live and govern ourselves. Scientists have been telling us that the goals of the Paris climate round are not nearly enough to get the job done, and we are not even meeting those. The Green New Deal is the only proposal realistic enough to realize that massive economic displacement will inevitably occur if we are to avoid climate disaster, and to plan for it. I have long been convinced that almost all the deniers of human-caused climate change know full well that it is actually an established fact -- they just don't want to alter their lifestyles or impinge upon their profits by making the economic and social changes necessary to combat it. The one per cent believe that they have the money and the resources to enable them to avoid the consequences of the inevitable flooding of the coast lines, the massive droughts, the planet-wide extinctions and the like, and that these will primarily be the problems of the "little" people like the rest of us.
4
I ask frequently and I have yet to find One. Single. Peep. who knows what their Carbon Footprint is, let alone how it compares to less-consumptive, less-wasteful societies (which includes almost everybody else on our Little Blue Orb, BTW).
The scale of the problem came crashing down on me the other day. I do know what my Carbon Footprint is and have been feeling sanctimonious because it's about 30% that of the average American. Yay me! I'm a Good Girl!
Then I ran across a website that calculates How Many Earths are needed to support different lifestyles. I smugly entered my data and - Holy Methane, Batman - discovered that we would need 1.4 earths if everybody lived like I do. So much for self-satisfaction. Now what do I cut?
4
We have to stop voting for elected officials, from town councils, to congress, to the President, who accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry. Force the industry to invest in clean energy technology so that there are both affordable and sought after options for the majority of Americans. As a Nation, if we lead by example, other countries will follow.
2
I find myself exhausted by all this: the pollution, loss of entire species, political rancor, polarization of "left" and "right." We are just children soiling our playpen. We will either get it right, or not. My sense is that Mother Earth has seen many species come and go. We aren't that special. Whether or not the human species survives is not the question, perhaps. It's always been about how we, as individuals, treat each other. I cannot control the whole planet, but I can offer kindness, forgiveness, and non-judgment to others- even as we struggle to survive.
7
@Just visiting
Herein lies the great divide between centrists and progressives. "Kindness, forgiveness and non-judgment to others" -- is that not the very rallying cry of the Times-WaPo-NPR neoliberal crowd that prioritize "civility" and the avoidance of "divisiveness" to making the very hard choices necessary to address the existential problems that we face? The old status quo is never coming back because it was unsustainable. Circumstances are forcing us to experience truly revolutionary change in the way we live and govern ourselves no matter what we do, and not by the end of the century -- indeed, that revolution is already well under way. Assuming we survive at all, the question is only whether such change will come from the populist left that prioritizes the needs of ordinary people over that of institutions and elites, or from the authoritarian right. The early returns are not promising, and that trend will continue unless those who like to think of themselves as "liberal" wake up and realize that the old incrementalist solutions and soothing mantras of the 1990's not only won't work any more, but are indeed part of the problem.
2
Greenland and Antarctica hold enough ice to raise seas by about 220 feet if it all melted. Complete melting would take many centuries, but melting is speeding up on the Greenland sheet, which currently contributes about two-thirds of a millimeter to sea level rise annually, and on much of the West Antarctic sheet.
"Many centuries"--aren't we in this problem because of underestimating the extent of warming?
1
Green New Deal. Bernie talks in person about uniting all of humanity to create the future we can survive and thrive in. Let’s do this. I still think we can. We will be better for trying.
3
I have long been pessimistic about the ultimate ability of the earth to support human life because we’re destroying our planet. Individual citizens, of course, can valiantly try to reverse their contributions to climate change. But one’s commitment to using recyclable bags, riding bikes instead of driving cars, and so forth, is a bit like trying to lose weight by cutting out breath mints.
126
Every time I hear a social problem discussed, I hear that we need systemic change, not incremental work around the edges. This is true of racial justice, health care, the prison system, voting rights, education, immigration, etc. But vested interests (like lobbyists for the coal, oil, and pharmaceutical industries) fight with dark money, and the populace is frightened of bold ideas.
But you know what: systemic change is going to happen. This climate emergency will lead to the upheavals of every social structure.
The question is whether human society will rise to meet these challenges.
145
@LuluBrooks People will remain ignorant because they are too greedy and self interested to see the forest for the trees, which by the way are burning or are being cut down for cattle grazing.
21
Hello
I read all the comments ; what gets my attention is that - as someone has put it - when one talks about climate change it is very rare that population growth is cited. We are exchanging the effect for the cause . And everybody knows why : to talk about birth control is anatema .
Simple as that.
27
@LuluBrooks
It's now too late.
"Systemic change" means re-tooling the globe. Ironically at this point the massive outlays of carbon to do that re-tooling at effective scale, coupled with the exploitation of resources and incumbent further environmental damage would all merely exacerbate the dire situation we are in. Meanwhile 7.7 billion people need to eat and work and have shelter, which is many billions more than Earth can sustain. That is the honest "systemic change" we need to make - and fast - but that's too ugly to contemplate.
7
For it's willful ignorance in this matter the GOP is guilty not just of crimes against humanity, but of crimes against all life on Earth.
6
If Trump is not removed from the presidency we can kiss it all goodbye.
5
I'm a climate change denier.
Don't get me wrong, I know for sure that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet and dooming our grandchildren. I think Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are heroes. I sign petitions and donate to environmental organizations. I vote for carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, alternative energy research and subsidies, and of course for Democrats.
But last week I got on a plane to fly across the country to make a Thanksgiving dinner consisting of tens or hundreds of ingredients grown on industrial farms, wrapped in plastic, and shipped on trucks. Because what else am I going to do - not see my family anymore? Spend every waking minute on the impossible effort to keep every consumer choice pure? All while knowing that my own actions won't make one iota of difference to global temperatures?
So really, am I any better than the "Fox News" crowd? I tell myself yes, because I'm ready to vote for politicians who will enact laws to make the actions that I took last week prohibitively expensive. But there are no such politicians, because telling people they can't make these choices is political suicide. So in the meantime, I'll keep living my life. And so will everyone else. We're all in denial.
208
"...my own actions won't make one iota of difference to global temperatures"
That statement is not accurate. Your actions have real, observable, measurable reactions/results/consequences. The thermostat and gas and electrical meters in the building you're in right now are a great place to begin observing, and engaging, the levers that are under the direct control of... you.
24
I know, me too. Makes me feel like a jerk, but not sure I’m willing to give up global travel yet. Esp when one of the guys in an article on Florida Keys wants gov to spend $120m to raise road to the house he flies his private plane to from Long Island. At least we’re not as bad as him, right? Wince...
13
Check out Positive Deep Adaptation as an alternative to the position you have taken here.
5
As a middle-aged woman who has studied meteorology most of her life starting at age 10, I’m so sad to read this article. People knew the climate was warming at least 30 years ago when we could’ve made changes that could have prevented all that we’ve seen and blamed on rising temperatures. We knew about alternative fuels for our cars long time ago. Scientist knew what carbon dioxide was doing to the planet yet few people in power listened or even made an attempt to stop or slow down the warming situation.
Nothing was done. I am sad for the generations that will follow me because they are going to have rough times ahead. The human race may not even survive.
161
@Weather Girl
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. We knew the climate was warming almost 50 years ago.
I remember conservative commentator Paul Harvey, Sr. chastising us for driving our cars to the event, without proof and missing the point.
14
@Weather Girl Is there some requirement that everyone has to announce what they are ? -
"Man is full of wants: he loves only those who can satisfy them all. “This one is a good mathematician,” one will say. But I have nothing to do with mathematics; he would take me for a proposition. “That one is a good soldier.” He would take me for a besieged town. I need then an upright man who can accommodate himself generally to all my wants."
Pascal
These academic declarations are taking on the appearance of 1950's Soviet production values and just as awful when a reckoning comes if it ever does.
@Weather Girl I share your sentiments.
4
As a climate scientist, I will say that things are getting worse, far faster than the scientific community thought possible; this is not any "new normal" and things will continue to get much worse so long as humans continue emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases; and the impacts could be irreversible on timescales far longer than humanity has existed.
As a parent and a human, I will say that I'm utterly terrified by what I'm seeing. My gut feeling is that global heating represents a clear and present danger to the entire human project. I fear for my children, and for people everywhere.
As a citizen, I will say that this is by far the most urgent issue the US faces at this time, and that the word "issue" does not do it justice. We are in a climate emergency. We must treat this with the same urgency as if we were being physically attacked by a foreign power. The only thing that gives me hope right now is that people are waking up rapidly. The grassroots climate movement is surging, which is needed for drastic policy action, which is needed for rapid emissions decrease.
This is a universal threat, and everyone should be speaking up, as loudly as they can. Please join the movement. We need a billion climate activists.
344
@Peter Kalmus
A billion+ people are not willing to give up their comforts and conveniences, I know I’m not, so I’m as guilty as the next person.
We are probably doomed, although I sincerely applaud your valiant efforts to rally the environmentally conscientious.
17
@Peter Kalmus The world we are leaving our children is rapidly becoming uninhabitable - especially for those on the bottom of the economic heap. My brother and I have children in their 30's. Had we known of the looming disaster neither of us would have reproduced.
Absolutely staggering reversal of what we took for granted as our and the world's future.
42
@Peter Kalmus
The overall impact of economic development on the biosphere is due to more than just global warming, but the warming is relatively easy to cap. What's required are collective actions to internalize some of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their market price. Leading economists across the political spectrum recommend revenue-neutral carbon taxes, for example a US carbon fee and dividend (washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-not-controversial-bipartisan-group-economists-calls-carbon-tax). In addition to a per-ton carbon fee taken from fossil fuel producers, a border adjustment tariff would be charged to importers of manufactured goods, based on the carbon burned to make them. The combined fee and tariff revenue would be returned to taxpayers in periodic equal-sized dividends. That means the gubmint don't git none, and slightly more than half of Americans would actually make money.
Once CF&D is in place, carbon-neutral alternative energy prices will be competitive, and consumer thrift and the profit motive can then build out the carbon-neutral US economy rapidly and efficiently. The BAT will motivate our trading partners to follow our lead. When the global carbon-neutral transition is complete, there will still be other environmental issues, but we'll at least have time to address them.
16
It is looking more and more that the only way climate change will be reversed will be when the human species drives itself into extinction and the earth can do its slow "reboot".
2
This article here--not any of the obviously "political" journalism that has catalogued our three-year nightmare under Trump--makes the most persuasive case for why impeaching the president and removing him, by election or by impeachment, is critical. At this point, every second is a vital resource for saving our species and countless others, and four more years of inaction by the leader of the capitalist free world just might seal our fate.
2
I feel as if I'm witnessing the end of humanity - or a massive 'reset' which will kill off most of our species.
Various aboriginal groups have stories of multiple worlds - with death and rebirth. Some say we are on the verge of another cycle coming to an end.
If there was only a 1% chance of the worst coming to pass we should be doing anything and everything possible to change the course we are on. But nothing changes.
What a shame. We had so much potential and it came to naught.
3
You suggest that glacial melting and ice-sheet collapse will happen only over centuries, but there is evidence from the geological record of catastrophic collapse happening far more quickly.
You fail completely to mention the melting of continental shelf methane anhydrates in the oceans which would massively speed up global warming in an uncontrollable feedback loop..
Some cheerful thoughts for the weekend!
1
Before climate change became a political tool, the New York Times reported in a November 11, 2003 article that in the last million years alone the earth has cycled through ten ice ages and warm ages. The article correctly attributes these climate change cycles to “wiggles in the Earth’s orbit” around the sun. We are now entering another Warm Age cycle due to this orbital wiggle. These Warm Ages have always happened, and will continue to happen, without any human input. We should always strive for clean, pollution-free air, land and water. But there is nothing we can do to stop the coming Warm Age. Unfortunately, that fact will not stop certain groups and individuals from using climate change to browbeat other groups and individuals.
With each person in the world responsible for the emission of around 5 tonnes of CO2 annually, the most effective way to reduce the emission of CO2 is to control population growth.
For the US, each person emits around 17 tonnes annually and the population is growing steadily at a rate of around 1.3%. Any progress from improved technology over the past thirty years has been more than wiped wiped out by the effects of population growth.
2
One sees a "dire warning" article like this every few days, it seems. One thing is certain: the world is not suddenly going to do a 180 and take drastic measures that will swiftly lower greenhouse gas emissions. The world economy is a very big ocean liner that takes a long time to turn around. And many people don't want to turn it around, for whatever reasons. We can bemoan this all we want, but that's the reality. We might as well plan for how to adapt to a warmer world, because a warmer Earth is apparently inevitable.
There is of course the possibility of a diminution of solar output, something which does occur and is in fact overdue, based on historical data. That's where ice ages come from. But it could also be hundreds or thousands of years in the future, and in any case there's no reason to believe it would perfectly counteract warming and bring us back to a mid-20th century climate.
Not to come across as a cynic in this but I think it's too late.
There's only one thing that could possible mitigate this situation. It's either a radical reduction in our numbers, or a true societal change in our life-style and consumption habits. I don't see either of these happening.
But don't despair. Mother Nature has the solution; she will effect a cure. She will probably force us to do both (reduce numbers plus lifestyle changes).
It can't be helped that we won't be enjoying it much; but like castor oil to a sick child it will be administered without regard to our protestations. We will have to take it whether we like it or not.
She will brook no protests or interference in this matter. So open wide....here it comes...
John~
American Net'Zen
2
@John I pretty much agree with you, but unfortunately species loss and other environmental damage caused by warming will have already taken place, and it will take thousands upon thousands of years for the Earth, as a living planet, to recover.
1
>>>Not to come across as a cynic
You come across as a realist to me John, fwiw.
@Jon Harrison: Indeed. For better and for worse Humanity is now a geological force on the planet, this terrarium we call the Earth.
But until we truly inculcate this realization into ourselves. put it front and center in the species mind, I fear our impact is going to be mostly negative. At first for all the other species that co-habit this rock with us, and eventually it will all circle right round and wallop us directly between the eyes.
And maybe that's what it's gonna take? A cold hard smack where it hurts us the most?
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
I worry, I have five different waste bags, I take the bus and train, I still heat my home with oil because doing anything else will mean costing the earth more in pollution, I have a very old telephone, I only buy clothes, European made, when I really need them, I grow a lot of my own vegetables and fruit and when I shop I take my own basket. My husband and I encourage our grandchildren to listen, to smell, to hear and to taste this wonderful nature that surrounds us and to know and respect it. This is all we can do.
12
Name one instance when humanity has ever made long term plans for a threat that required sacrificing comfort and convenience? I don’t mean threats just to their particular tribe but all of humanity? Our brains didn’t evolve for such a thing. Even war time sacrifices were short term and to protect ones tribe. Maybe it’s a first. Interesting anthropological experiment. Of course, maybe, eventually we’ll come to see it as a threat to our tribe and do something. Probably be too late by then however.
1
There is nothing that we can do to keep our Earth from destroying itself or getting destroyed by something from outer space that we can't even see. What we need to do to save humans is to find a livable planet in another solar system and we better hurry up with that.
@Jim Dwyer Completely untrue about the earth destroying itself. WE are destroying our own environment. There is plenty we can do. We just lack the will.
4
“The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry, & transportation,” Really? That's the only solution? Guess what. That's not happening. Ever. What do we use to power production, industry & transportation? Solar? Wind? Not possible, not scalable. Every few years, someone publishes a road map for running a country or a state on 100% renewable energy by some date, say 2050. The resulting headlines look great, & people walk away with the impression that, if we wanted to, we could easily drop fossil fuels. But delve into these road maps & you’ll often find jaw-dropping numbers of solar panels, radical changes to existing infrastructure, & amazing assumptions about our ability to cut energy use that makes switching to renewables seem daunting. Why don't we admit the truth? The Paris Accords are NEVER going to happen. That point can't be emphasized enough. If we double gas prices this country would swing so far to the right that even Trump wouldn't recognize it. You might be willing to pay more for gas but would the 63 million people who voted for Trump pay more? Absolutely not. I'll go much further. You couldn't get a majority of Democratic voters to agree to a $10 a gallon climate tax. They won't do it. Even a carbon tax that is revenue neutral (because somehow all cash collected is returned to the people) is unpopular because voters are much more aware of money going out of their wallets than the check that arrives later to offset the expense.
2
Cake is in the oven baking right now. We could have done some changes 50 years ago, yet we didn't see the need. We are in the cake in the Oven and even if we are taken out of the oven, we can't ourselves get out of the cake all that easy.
We know there are issues. We can see the change. So while we are here, lets remember that we can build things on the ocean, not just on land. Let us think outside this box we seem to be in. Let us go where we haven't gone for a few centuries. Go back to seeing how our food is made, getting out into the sunshine, working with the planet a bit more than trying to wrestle it to our will, and letting it show us how better to live. Parking lots could be turned back to forest land, that we also park under. Roof tops could harvest sunlight, not caring if it's only a little, every bit counts. Earth shelter homes, floating Island homes, the solutions are numerous. Change is afoot. Move with it, or be run over.
3
I have seen how much things have changed in my neck of the woods. I think most of us have. I have also noticed a big decrease in the number of insects-this is happening on a worldwide scale. I read weather-related news from around the world, daily. People have no idea how bad things are. Record-breaking drought around the world, 2 years of rain in 1 day, 1 foot of snow in summer, 300% increase in rainfall over 2 months, and on and on. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are the five hottest years since record keeping began in 1850. Most of the articles I read say "record-breaking" or "unprecedented." The jet stream has changed, which is why we're seeing bizarre weather. Permafrost is melting, which will release huge amounts of methane. The heat is going into the oceans, which causes the water to expand, thus raising sea levels, but the ocean can only hold so much heat, so it's just going to get hotter. Even if we stopped all emissions today, the temps will still go up, as the pollution in the atmosphere is masking how hot it actually is. But we won't stop polluting. Our emissions just keep rising. We really should have done something about it back in the 80's when we still had a fighting chance.
9
@Barbara "I have also noticed a big decrease in the number of insects-this is happening on a worldwide scale." A one deg C increase in temperature wipes out insects? Really?
Stopping climate change is incompatible with GDP growth so I expect nothing to truly change.
22
@Monsp. It's also incompatible with maintaining our stardard of living in the "developed world" and increasing the standard of living in the "developing world"
2
@Monsp You hit the nail square on the head. If GDP were ever to begin to go negative the Fed will pull out all the stops. Climate change will go to the bottom of the list of concerns.
@Monsp You are right. However, the costs of climate disaster are mounting quickly and the negative impacts to business are as well. Unless a global transformation occurs, the point of no return is just around the corner. Sadly, we have had the technology for decades but no political will to change on the part of the powers that be...the fossil fools.
Climate change is clearly a fundamental challenge for our society, yet the first two elements of the "Green New Deal" have nothing to do with carbon at all - "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States... Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature." Sadly the Dems can't keep themselves from linking action on climate to every other political issue that animates the far left, rendering meaningful consensus and action impossible.
7
@Zartan you've missed the point. The people who are suffering the most from climate change are the poor. The entire financial system is set up to serve the 1 %. Economic reform and justice are required not only to reestablish some semblance of equality but to redeploy the trillions of dollars spent by the military industrial complex and fossil fools to build a sustainable economy. In order to reverse the current trend, everyone will need to "work" to make the changes...kind of like the WW 2 effort. The current parasitic rentier and extractive economic system is destroying the planet and humanity by fouling the earth that grows our food, the water we drink and the air that we breathe. The technology to make these changes has existed for decades but the oligarchy has no incentive or political will to make the changes. North America has burned the most fossil fuels and has left the biggest carbon footprint. With our obscene wealth and technological capability, we should be leading the world to repair the damage we have caused. Instead, we have a bunch of regressive, self serving politicians who dump trillions of dollars into endless wars, corporate subsidies, political campaigns and other nonsensical enterprises. It is probably already too late for everyone and no amount of money will provide an escape from the environmental collapse that is coming.
@Zartan The USA isn’t the world, much as that seems to be the limit of your thinking. Simply put the planet CANNOT provide the world population with the American ‘excess in everything’ way of life. We all have to reduce our expectations or we all will have nothing.
1
@Zartan "paid vacations and retirement security"???? That's just what we need to address the climate crisis.
In this edition of the NYT, and at the time of this post, over 2700 comments about 3 different articles regarding trump have been submitted, but alarmingly, only 59 comments about this climate change article. Shocking!
38
I am 69. Having heard that we have caused more environmental destruction during the past 30 years than during all the thousands since man first walked the earth, it kinda makes me wonder how long the greedy life-style mode will last. It is amazingly ignorant to think that things will just carry on as they are.
The human race is in for a serious butt-kicking that will make ice-melt measurements, big pickup trucks, EPA rulings, UN reports and migrations into pathetic distractions in comparison.
But the biggest paradox and cosmic joke is that the quest for fulfillment and lasting satisfaction that is driving all of this disastrous greed has been always available in total abundance, right within the human heart. It is the untapped vein of gold that looks like it will be discovered by only a fortunate few.
20
@Que Viva! That may be the silver lining of the climate apocalypse - more people will dicover the vein of gold of which you speak.
@Michael G Yes, after all, walk into a dark room with a candle and it is all lit up! Pretty simple really. I like to think that the creator put the real joy right under my nose, easily accessible and super available with no go-betweens because he/she knew that I need a leg-up. And besides, I think the idea is to find it early and spend the rest of this precious existence enjoying the divine now, to the max! The design is exquisite and innate. Cheers Michael!
We're screwed....
10
Please stop with the alarmism. Seas rising a 1/10 of an inch faster? Um, don’t you think that is within the margin of measuring error? Which makes it meaningless!
1
@Joe McKenney No, the measured increase isn't within the margin of measuring error. In fact, it's quite easy to find research that demonstrates this. For example, you can go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and read "Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era" Don't you think posts about climate change would be more meaningful if those making such posts took the time to educate themselves about climate science?
24
We can’t even agree to end vast subsidies to the oil and gas industries. We sell leases for pennies on the dollar for public resources. And we we fail to impose a carbon tax. Beyond stupid.
35
At least as far as the US is concerned, the lack of action (or, worse, active resistance to action) devoted towards reversing this trend leaves me with zero optimism that timely change will be effectuated. Future generations will be right to curse us as reckless, selfish, stupid, and lazy.
8
@jane
future generations are not mnemonic.
they won’t have any kind of tangible point of reference other than historical data,
therefore they won’t be cursing us, to them much of the past is an academic abstract.
they will live in the reality that is given to them and cope with the issues at hand.
However, getting back to our present state of (un)reality, it’s easy to see why Hollywood makes so much money on apocalyptic, dystopian fantasies (which I personally don’t understand or embrace) and stories about Terraforming other planets, which I do find very intriguing.
It’s too bad our technology in so many critical areas of scientific research lags way behind the ability to destroy ourselves militarily and environmentally.
1
@jane
future generations are not mnemonic.
they won’t have any kind of tangible point of reference other than historical data,
therefore they won’t be cursing us, to them much of the past is an academic abstract.
they will live in the reality that is given to them and cope with the issues at hand.
However, getting back to our present state of (un)reality, it’s easy to see why Hollywood makes so much money on apocalyptic, dystopian fantasies (which I personally don’t understand or embrace) and stories about Terraforming other planets, which I do find very intriguing.
It’s too bad our technology in so many critical areas of scientific research lags way behind the ability to destroy ourselves militarily and environmentally.
@jane future generations? I applaud your optimism.
3
The climate crisis needs to be addressed simultaneously on several levels. There are many little changes individuals can do, but really the sources of carbon need to be cut off, and that's something governments can help with. No action should be taken without a "carbon consciousness", and this has to be true for all activities, personal, governmental, cultural.
Were everyone and every business and government to stop adding greenhouse gases right now, the level we are currently at would continue to cause disruption for the forseeable future, so carbon sinks - trees and some emerging tech - are also needed.
People think: how can I live without my car, planes, the military, or meat? Those decisions can be made for you by you, your representatives or by the climate itself. Which of these choices do you think you have a say in?
8
The climate emergency should be the #1 issue in the coming election, and yet the Democratic primary debates have barely touched on the issue. Yes, the party that is supposed to “care” about climate change can’t even be bothered to ask its primary candidates what their plans are for the massive decarbonization that needs to take place over the next 10 years. You know what that tell me? It tells me that the Democratic establishment really doesn’t care. Oh yes, under a President Biden or Buttigieg we will rejoin the Paris accord and make pleasant-sounding promises. But in the end, it will be too little, too late. Our only real hope here is to nominate a candidate who is not afraid of “big, structural change”. I’m supporting Warren because I think that she’s got what it takes to lead us through this crisis. Our entire fate as a species and as a planet depends on the choices we make now.
11
“The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry and transportation.” Buckle up people, because that just ain't happening.
3
It's like the little boy who cried "Wolf!" We've heard about climate change in such alarmed tones for so long that we don't pay much attention. Yes, someday it will hit us. But not now.
1
We're not going to make it. Or worse, we will be in living in a Mad Max future.
7
Dr. Taalas said. “The only solution is to get rid of fossil fuels in power production, industry and transportation,”
Sounds easy
1
@Heard You Flip Houses Then I hope Dr. Taalas has stopped driving cars, stopped heating his home with oil, stopped purchasing any product that required the use of oil, turned off all lights and computers- and becomes a vegetarian. Seems like the duty of all who are horrified of an existential threat to the planet by climate change. Otherwise, those "with the climate fear" are just as guilty as everyone else. So, they should show the way! Who will be the first to claim having a zero carbon footprint? That person should get a Noble Prize.
Neither side has enough true data over a long enough period of time to make a claim one way or another. But there is money to be made in scaring people. In the 70s the ice age was coming, now we are all going to melt or drown. Guess what, you(and your descendants) have more of a chance of dieing early from an eruption of the Yellowstone Volcano. There is more proof of the next major long term change of the climate of the earth being caused by a natural event than anything else, short of a full scale nuclear weapon induced incident.
But that doesn't sell newspapers. Glad my subscription is free.
@Mike K - When you say "Neither side has enough true data over a long enough period of time to make a claim one way or another.", I'm assuming the two sides you are talking about are:
A) those who don't care about understanding science stuff
or
B) those with financial or ideological reasons to avoid admitting the science has been convincingly proven for decades already.
For those in group A, here's a writeup of the effects of fossil fuel use on our climate. It was a helpful document Exxon's own scientists wrote up to educate their management in the early 1980s.
https://archive.org/details/1982ExxonPrimerOnCO2GreenhouseEffect
Their management responded as those in group B tend to, deny and promote disinformation.
The planet is responding as predicted even decades before Exxon's management were educated about it. And there's loads more science from the past warming events that helped with figuring out where we're headed.
For more education about what's happening in the US, here's the 2017 science review of our National Climate Assessment.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
And here's the 2018 follow-up "Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States"
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
22
@Mike K,
Yours is the argument from ignorance. You may not have seen enough 'true' data, but how would you know? Climate scientists, OTOH, are trained to tell true from fake data, and their peers don't let them get away with fooling themselves. While there were a few newspaper headlines about a coming ice age in the 70s, there was very little serious talk of it among scientists.
In fact, by that time C. David Keeling was already raising the alarm among his colleagues about increased 'greenhouse' warming, based on his direct measurements of rising CO2 in the atmosphere (scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve). His data are as true as any can be. More recently we have the latest five-year report from the World Meteorological Organization, titled "Global Climate in 2015-2019: Climate change accelerates" (public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates). Data doesn't get much truer than that, either.
Of course anthropogenic global warming can never be *proven* to a pseudo-skeptic's satisfaction. I, however, am more than confident *enough* in the scientific consensus, to acknowledge that only collective action can cap the warming before global society collapses beyond recovery. We can't wait for Mike K to catch up. The sooner we enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax, the better!
16
Each day, Trump and his Republicans act to make our planet less & less inhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
The window of opportunity to effectively mitigate Climate Change is rapidly disappearing.
The remaining 2020 Democratic Candidates will try to cut & paste portions of Governor Jay Inslee’s comprehensive & actionable Climate Change Mitigation Plan.
We must go with the Real Deal.
The winning Democratic Party 2020 Ticket: President Warren (build a green economy) + Vice President Inslee (save a blue planet)! W+IN 2020!
+++++++++++++++
FYI: Here’s an excellent article by David Roberts of Vox which explains Governor Inslee’s Climate Change Mitigation Plan:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/30/20731958/jay-inslee-for-president-climate-change-justice-plan-green-new-deal
9
Burning fossil fuels is like smoking: The best time to give it up was 40 years ago, but it's never too late to do some good. Losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will be bad enough. There may still be time to save the East Antarctic. Melting that would be a catastrophe without precedent in human history.
If we had the sense to pour pee from a boot we would be replacing all coal and gas-fired power plants with nuclear plants, to supplement wind turbines and Solar panels. But no, we don't, and we won't. Oh well.
9
I am only concerned for the poor animals which we humans are killing by our greed. I could care less how humans suffer because we are to blame and we deserve to suffer. The world would be far better if humans went extinct.
6
When you're done with this article. Head on over to the travel section where you'll be enticed to fly to Berlin Paris Singapore and Vietnam.
5
Difficult to take climate theatrics seriously given all the unbridled emotions presented as legitimate science. This isn’t how legitimate scientists engage with each other much less the common public.
3
@Irv Teitelbaum Maybe you should read the currently most recommended comment for this article then — it’s written by a climate scientist, and yes, that person is scared. I’m also a scientist, and I too am scared. It’s not theatrics; it’s a human response to all of the studies that predict massive, and unwelcome, change on this planet as a result of global warming. Just today, I read a commentary in Nature about how close we could be coming to certain climactic tipping points. As a scientist, I found it incredibly chilling, in part because I have the mathematical background to fully appreciate their point. The situation is much worse than the general public appreciates and we need to act immediately.
48
What's theatrical about measurements of 415.70 parts-per-million for atmospheric carbon dioxide?
2
@Irv Teitelbaum -- funny comment you make, there, Irv.
I just reread every quoted statement in the article and didn't see any theatrics. Please provide the quotes, because I saw a bunch of pretty much factual statements, combined with non-histrionic judgement statements like "Things are getting worse".
That, by the way, is a fairly calm, acceptable statement if one feels that increasing rates of damage to our infrastructure, agriculture and societies is a move from "not worse" to "worse".
I know you're high in Colorado, but please explain to us how another two or six feet of normal sea level will make our coastal cities "better" at the end of the century and later.
1
But according to the networks that sponsor the primary debates the future of the world is not so important that we need to spend much time asking our political leaders what their plans are.
Instead we get "name a person who was influential in your life?"
The real message from the non-debate debates is "lets not ruffle the feathers of our sponsors."
21
I'm convinced that most people have no idea, no idea whatsoever, just how much threat we are under. They may be "concerned" about climate, but do not understand what it will take to decarbonize our economy.
We will have to pull out all stops to save ourselves. Shift rapidly to alternative energy and nuclear. We have will to rapidly create the means to transition homes from oil and gas heat. Make enormous investments in R&D in battery technology, fusion and our grid. This list goes on and on.
I see two strong trends. There are those with some measure of denial, and, perhaps larger and certainly growing, are those who just see hopelessness, and wonder how to adapt to what remains of our ruined planet.
Getting rid of Trump isn't even half of it, unfortunately. The Republican leadership remains opposed, and industry -- oil and gas - will fight action until the bitter end. But it will be apathy, inertia and wilful ignorance that will finish us off.
35
@K.Kong All humans could stop producing every ounce of CO2, and that would have a tiny if any effect on the climate, as nature produces the overwhelming majority of CO2, more than 90% of all CO2 is nature-made. Thinking man is causing what has always been what we call nature is pseudoscience. Climate changes, and has always changed. The ice that you seem to be missing is growing in Antarctica. Lots of ice growth down there. But if you think less than 5% of the globe's population can change the climate, you might want to consider a different hobby.
4
@K.Kong, yes, agreed. Few people are able to grasp the concept that climate change is both irreversible and the effect relative to cumulative emissions rather than the emissions rate. Add to that the thermal house of cards our delicate biosphere relies on and the ongoing loss of human leverage due to increasing positive feedbacks.
4
@hemi49er how do you rationalize away the scientific processes - the same ones you rely on for much of your life and understanding of the world- that produces consistent results of accelerated climate change in the last 100 years, induced by- hold your ears and maybe it will go away- specifically human behaviors, like CO2 production, deforestation, etc.? I will never never understand why anyone would suppress a truth that could save so so many things worth caring about. If we are wrong, awesome! If we're not, you and people like you who insist on denying, obfuscating, and dragging any impetus for change into false analogy and politics- you will be to blame for the wallowing apathy that will undoubtedly destroy the ecosystems that support us and nourish our souls on this planet
14
In the early 80’s I had dinner next to the director of Research for Royal Dutch Petroleum and all of Shell. I and several of my peers were invited to dinner with them. He asked me where we should direct research and I told him we needed to mine the sun rather than the earth. I have long believed that human “exhaust” which are largely gases and resulting atmospheric perturbations would ultimately doom us.
THe latest carbon numbers are not encouraging. Why am I glad I am 78...
14
@SBJim My granddaughter is one year old.
1
@MBS
I am sorry for your situation. I have 2 sons and both they and their SO's do not want to bring children into the world. How to explain this reduction in fecundity?
The young know the future better than us old folks (78) because they have to live it
And the top three best selling vehicles in the USA are full-sized pickup trucks. The base model of these trucks have about 2.5x the horsepower that the same pickup truck did in 1984.
As far as I'm concerned, "almost too late" means, "we're going to shoot right past it". The question is, when do people feel threatened enough to buy smaller cars, or carpool, or take the bus, and how much further past that temperature will inertia and positive feedback mechanisms take us? How many people will the earth support at those elevated temperatures, and what will their lifestyle be like?
13
@Andrew I own one of these trucks and it is indeed powerful. It also has a smaller displacement six-cylinder engine and gets at least twice the gas mileage of a 1984 pickup, which would have had an inefficient V-8. Engine technology has made incredible strides in the past 35 years.
@Steve But the simple fact is, if we want a planet that is inhabitable for our children, the whole idea of the personal vehicle has to go. Everything needs to change ... and that starts with letting go of the outdated notion that we can continue as we have with a few tweaks here and there.
33
@Daniel And people who need trucks and other large vehicles for professional reasons are to do...what, exactly?
1
Pardon the pun but accelerated climate change should be THE hot button issue for the 2020 election because the youth vote matters. In my opinion, young people are far more concerned with climate change than health insurance coverage because there is time for negotiation on coverage issues over the next couple of decades while the climate change issue is increasingly demanding immediate attention.
13
Saw a wonderful documentary from 1978. It was after the few very cold, snowy winters of the late 70s. Showed scientists talking about how ice and mud cores were proof that the earth was entering another ice age. Not surprisingly, it was after the very warm year in 1988 that the global warming hysteria began. Do your homework. It is colder now than in the first 30 years of the 20th Century when the CO2 levels were considerably lower than today. And don’t forget that a colder earth is far more scary than a warmer earth. Trust science and verifiable history, not scientists and their career driven theories.
2
Unfortunately what you are demonstrating is the conjecture of a few misguided, general conservative media outlets that did not represent the majority scientific position at the time. All of the peer reviewed, scientific journals of the time basically stated the same as today. There was some under estimation of climate impacts from rising CO2 due to a lack of understanding of how heat was stored in the oceans, but the biggest change since the late 60s is computing power. When I was an engineer at NASA, because of limits in technology, the computational grids had to fairly large. This created more uncertainty. Today, computational power is far more powerful and the grids are much much more refined. Even so, the general calculations about temperature and sea level, even from the 60s were generally correct. It’s important not to base opinions on false narratives- scientists never supported the cooling theory.
23
@ehillesum, perhaps you should read Exxon's paper on the subject written in 1982. Unlike the 'documentary' you watched, it's not fake. http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf
2
@ehillesum Climate change believes in you.
3
"Lets just wait and see" is what too many people are thinking. It's as if they were at the Mall picking out clothes. After seeing how the clothes fit, and how they look in them, they assume the right to return the clothes and not pay for them. But once you put on these clothes, they'll never come off again. And you'll pay for them, regardless if you want them or not. Indeed, if you don't find a way out of this store soon, more clothes will just wrap themselves around you automatically. These you will also have to pay for, and can't take off.
As members of a capitalist society, we are used to trying things on, seeing how we look, and returning what we don't like without paying. This is nothing like that. You try these clothes on, and you wear them forever. What is more, if you don't exit this store quickly, you'll never see the light of day again.
12
We are primates. We do not have a world government to control what happens to the entire planet. Primates will be tribal and seek protection of only their tribe. When their land becomes an arid desert or goes underwater, they still won't get the big picture.
Republican policies from Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr, and especially Trump have accelerated climate change. Please understand that whenever you vote for a Republican, you vote to end life on this planet. A good book is "the Sixth Great Extinction". Will humans make it to 2300? Most do not care if they do.
63
@Russ I think you transposed 2 numbers - it should 2030. Any party that subsidized (directly or indirectly) fossil fuels has accelerated climate change.
4
Get rid of fossil fuels! Tell that to the billion or so new middle class in China and India. This years CO2 output was even larger than last years. It's a done deal. We're past the tipping point and the global climate chaos is about to break loose. Humans won't change. We're our own worst enemies.
9
@markd "Get rid of fossil fuels!" The best way to do that is for all those who believe in the climate crisis to right now boycott all fossil fuels. Yes, stop driving your car, stop flying in planes, stop heating your house and be sure to become a vegetarian. Declare yourself "fossil fuel free". Just think how if millions of Americans do this- it will almost instantly damage the fossil fuel industries, driving many out of business- which is the objective, right? Boycotts are a powerful tool for change. Oh, I forgot, also stop buying any products that required fossil fuels to be made- which of course is just about everything. Why wait years for the installation of millions of wind turbines and millions of acres to be covered with solar farms- when you can do your part right now to force change. Personally, I won't do these things because, though I know the temperature is going up a bit, I don't see it as an existential crisis- but those who do can force change quickly. However, I am rather efficient in energy use- can't afford to waste it so I probably have a lower carbon footprint than most of those who are terrified of the climate crisis - but seriously, if I thought this problem was an existential crisis, I'd do all the things I'm recommending above.
I feel like every year the same headline is put out warning of calamity. Yet nothing really changes. The models just aren’t accurate.
@Dady This entire article is about what is changing--and changing much faster than we anticipated. To the degree the models aren't accurate, it is because they were too moderate.
12
@Dady This kind of climate change is permanent, on a societal level. They warn of climate calamity because it doesn't do you any good to give that warning once the calamity has already arrived. Once it arrives, it is never, ever, going away again. A King Tide hits Miami, and then disappears, and reappears. The Tide we're talking about, once it hits Miami, it never goes away. Not in a thousand years. Indeed, all indications are that this climate tide will only grow, with each passing century, for the next thousand years.
11
Here’s the unfortunate thing - change is happening more rapidly at the poles and the equator where temperatures are now more extreme. But the models - even from 20-30 years ago realized this - and that what is to follow will be devastatingly bad. In the next 50 years we will begin to feel the ramifications here in the US. Lower yields on crops, less protein in grains, massive die outs of out food sources and declining stocks of fresh water. It’s only a matter of time....and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
4
This is the most urgent problem facing us and all others species.
Nothing else really matters if we cannot elect leaders who will face this with courage and call upon the populace to sacrifice their comforts as in war times. And lead by example.
Join climate crisis activist groups, go to protests, and invite your friends to go with you, in the meantime. Climate protests that are large, that remain peaceful and non violent, and that are expressive, are newsworthy. Perhaps even newsworthy enough for FOX news coverage.
13
@Sandra Campbell do you think it is possible to elect leaders who aren't bought and paid for by major corporations?
The rising sea levels will be NOTHING compared to the increases in maximum summer temperatures in places like northern Africa and the Middle East. They've already reached 129 degrees in Kuwait. When it's 140 degrees, and it's life or death, that'll be 1 billion people coming to Europe. The population of Europe right now is 740 million.
12
Actually - I would disagree. Oceans, because they are darker and more massive will heat up and we should expect mass extinctions in the seas. At some point, the oceans will reach a thermal state where they will no longer be able to act as a break on our heating planet. At that point, air temperatures globally will spiral beyond sustainable life.
7
Grassroots activism is far more complex than simply “getting out into the streets” and other acts of public protest.
It begins with the average consumers of highly developed/industrialized countries in all hemispheres to consider the details of their respective lifestyles in minutae.
Aside from energy, two other industries come to mind, although they are only the tip of the iceberg; convenience foods and jewelry.
We all need to eat and many of us love convenience and snack foods, think Palm Oil and the deforestation of Indonesia. Many health experts don’t even endorse palm oil as being nutritionally beneficial.
The jewelry industry, when put under pressure, cried foul about blood diamonds but now you hardly hear about that anymore, and the reality is that mining practices and the living conditions of people who work these operations haven’t improved an iota.
The NY Times recently ran articles about Indonesia's illegal gold mining, palm oil production and the practice of burning plastics to fuel the production of tofu.
Burning plastics in the production of tofu, what a cruel irony that is.
The NY Times has also highlighted street food vendor’s use of discarded auto fuel in China replacing or supplementing expensive cooking oils, how hideous is that.convenience
4
The powerful don't listen. Why?
Perhaps the super-rich see global cooking as an easy way to kill off Billions of "unprofitable" poor people?
Unfortunately for them, their plans have backfired, and they're now in a panic to rip off all the wealth in the world. But in the end, it won't protect them. And they and their children will die as well as our own.
22
What Trump has done regarding the environment and climate change is a supremely “high crime”—an existential “high crime”—deserving of removal from office.
55
Humans truly are our own worst enemies.
13
What would it take to convince the Fox viewer types that we face an emergency, and it's all hands on deck now? A 'Day After Tomorrow' storm?
The facile comments - 'climate always changes', 'maybe the climate will change back' and the most irresponsible of all - 'It's in God's hands'...
14
The Toast report. Practice yoga, talk to birds and trees and bees. Help people less fortunate than you are here.
The kind of changes we need to make are way out of range for humans to sustain. People change a little bit every day. Tiny habits grow into big ones.
Not that we should stop trying, but stop posting this kind of story that says we have to magically stop emitting exhaust. It is distracting at best. Al Gore said in the late 80's that there were only about 100 companies that poured fossil fuel into our country.
Those companies encourage this tail pipe reporting. Why? Because they want your attention on emissions and not the $38 billion public subsidy for fossil fuels.
They don't want the price of carbon exhaust that is now free or very low cost dumping in our seas and atmosphere to go up.
What is the end game here for you? When are you going to join 350.org or some other group and organize to say basta?
Indonesia is relocating millions of people in Jakarta. Sigh.
I'm off to yoga because I need some peace in my body. But I also need to get more involved in the fight for a greener more just world.
So I'm organizing to end fossil fuel driven leaf blowers and have Washington join Trudeau's Canada to ban single use plastic that is killing whales and all life in the sea.
Do what you can. Meditate, pray, exercise, love one another.
16
Oh seattle, my hometown. I hate gas leaf blowers, and you inspire me to bring it up in nyc. Thanks!
3
@Tim C even though we're beyond help, do every thing you can to help others.
Here is why I am concerned. This story has 20 comments. Another story in The Times, “How Jell-O Molds Claimed Their Spot on the American Table” has 95 comments. We should have known we were spiraling in a path to destruction when someone came up with Jello—and people ate it.
29
@Gregory Greenleaf don't worry Greg. This story appeared this AM. But they only opened comment about 5p
Plenty if time to gather up tales of woe and despair. They really should post the national suicide hotline with these articles.
I’m horrified to realize that I am not afraid for my grandchildren. Because my children already know how bad things are. There won’t be any grandchildren.
50
"Using satellite data, a 2018 study found that global sea level rise is now about 4.5 millimeters a year, or a little less than one-fifth of an inch. The rate is increasing by about a 10th of a millimeter a year."
As an experimental scientist I'm always amazed at the precision of the measurements claimed by the climatologists. How does one measure the average sea level rise of the whole earth to a tenth of a millimeter? And what is the uncertainty associated with this measurement? All measurements are uncertain to some extent. I think one should be skeptical of values like this.
3
The article literally provides a link to the study that describes how they measured it. In some detail. It’s in PNAS.
3
@Arnold Baise why skeptical? Because you asked the NYT comments section and nobody responded? It seems to me a true skeptic would go to the source of the suspect information, and ask there. Satellite altimetry bounces light (radio) waves from the satellite to the surface and back, measuring the time delay. This is accurate to within fractions of an inch.
"what is the uncertainty associated with this measurement?" I'm no expert, and clearly, from your questions, neither are you. Did you think the NYT comments section is filled with such experts? Or were you making a comment disguised as a question? In either case, the people who actually make these measurements, I'm sure, would be happy to talk your ear off about how they are made, and the uncertainty associated with them. Why aren't you asking them?
1
@Arnold Baise,
If you're an experimental scientist, you should be aware you don't need to be very literate in climate science, if you can recognize credible sources. Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon calls that "scientific meta-literacy" (blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy). Knowing there's a lopsided consensus of climate specialists, you can follow the peer-reviewed evidence they cite to satisfy yourself that it's well-supported. The periodic IPCC Assessment Reports Mr. Fountain mentions, reference the physical science of climate change authoritatively and comprehensively (ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5).
By all means, be genuinely skeptical of claims by climatologists, or any other natural scientists. Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself, however. Don't, for example, rely on the argument from personal incredulity! If you're a scientist, why would you assume climate scientists haven't thought about your questions? Do a little homework. Here, try "Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era", a peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (pnas.org/content/115/9/2022.full). It rigorously quantifies measurement uncertainty in the text.
Bernie is fighting g for the Green New Deal. Our lives depend on it. We can all support it and see if it helps us create a future we can survive. What do we have to lose? We have the very existence of life on earth to gain.
11
Isn't the worst impact of climate change the loss of food sources, including the extinction of thousands or more species of marine and animal life?
The result: catastrophic famine for humanity and a major, major reduction of the human population.
These species losses would be irreversible. Coupled with the collapse of modern civilization, extreme weather, and disease, we're looking at a potential extinction event for humanity in about 130 years.
23
@Jim
"Isn't the worst impact of climate change the loss of food sources, including the extinction of thousands or more species of marine and animal life?"
This is likely the area of climate change that is more unknown than known. The changes in the ocean chemistry and temperatures seem to be a fairly big problem that may break down sea life food chains. (I think that could be the initial food chain issue.)
3
“At the root of the changes is the basic process of global warming.”
The writer avoids the obvious. The true root cause for global warming? People. Too many of them.
All climate change -- without exception -- is driven by human action. Climate change is only the symptom; overpopulation is the disease. The world population is about 7.6 billion, double what it was in the 1970's, and still growing, today, at 80 million more each year. Unless that can be halted: Go ahead, conserve, convert, do without -- and those are feel-good actions. So long as population growth continues, we -- including all animal life on Earth -- are doomed.
All actions proposed treat the symptom. Nobody except China addresses the disease. Nobody will.
We're doomed. Without hope, no matter how many stopgap measures are introduced -- so long as population growth is not halted. Slowing it a bit isn't enough.
Enforced birth control -- as in each birth is followed, by law, by tying the mother's fallopian tubes -- is the only action that may save mankind. The chance of such laws being enacted and enforced is nil.
Its all over.
58
@Austin Liberal not your point, I know, but mathematically a woman can only gestate 1 time per year, a man can in theory produce thousands of offspring a year...the real solution is male sterilization by law, a much less invasive and more effective procedure.
43
@Austin Liberal
You had me till the part about "tying the mother's fallopian tubes". If we're saving "mankind" let it fall to us men to be fixed.
25
It’s over consumption, not overpopulation. Forced birth control of who? The poor countries with high birth rates aren’t generating the co2. Rich 1st world countries with low birth rates are.
14
To turn over the energy infrastructure on the planet would take a massive effort that essentially hasn't started. (a few wind turbines and solar panel are not going to do much) Since heavy infrastructure takes a long time to develop and build, the planet is really decades behind from where it needs to be. We should have started in the 80s and hope to get things done by 2100.
7
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke at the start of COP25, the international climate conference currently happening in Madrid Spain. He said that what is lacking to address our climate crisis is "political will". The world already has the science and technology to limit warming. We need “political will to put a price on carbon. Political will to stop subsidies on fossil fuels. Political will to stop building coal power plants from 2020 onwards. Political will to shift taxation from income to carbon. Taxing pollution instead of people.” Political will is created when we let our elected representatives know what we want. What we want is a livable planet. I hope you will call or write your elected representatives today and let them know what you want.
32
It's so strange that our country and world is rigged so fat cat oil barons can get richer ... that is more important than our own survival. A friend of mine was ranting about how AOC wanted to get rid of fossil fuels, he responded that several thousands of people were employed by the oil industry.
Several thousand people were employed by the horse and buggy and typewriter industries, too; but they didn't have nearly the affects of global warming.
I'm not sure how we can fight this when the U.S., China, and Amazon jungle destroying Brazil flip their middle fingers at the rest of the world.
79
Isn’t there some way to get this across to the Fox crowd? Infiltrate GOP meetings? Ads on Fox? As long as climate change denial is still a factor, nothing will get done, let alone enough to actually change the disastrous future we are all facing.
46
@Judith Nelson
An opinion piece on 10/31 might have the answer to your first question:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/sunday/climate-change-evangelical-christian.html?searchResultPosition=1
2
Great article! I’ll look at her global weirding series. I’m glad she’s undertaking these conversations, but as an orthodox pagan, most of my co-religionists already agree with me, and the evangelicals are too busy praying for my soul to listen.
3
@Judith Nelson i really think the answer is secretly buying out fox news and infiltrating the airwaves without the audience knowing!
4
The Paris Agreement mandates I suspect were so politically compromised to such an extent that the exit by the U.S. is probably a moot point.
I don’t think these guidelines were ever truly stringent enough to really make an appreciable difference after all nobody really wants to give up their comfortably established standards of living.
Everybody loves to point fingers at western industrialized countries or the rampant capitalism of
developing countries, but either way it’s basically six and one-half dozen of the other.
Yes, this is very pessimistic but realistically, are any of the world’s leaders truly interested in implementing meaningful policy changes? I think not.
11
If there were no other reason to vote Trump out of office, this is the one that matters. We need a leader for a Global Climate crisis. We have serious consequences that will need to be faced and we have genuine opportunity to clean up our technology and policy to make it even better. Trump in office is the difference between a learning opportunity and total environmental collapse for the ecosystems we love and rely on.
139
@Bellingham By saying that US "technology [should be made] even better", you seem to imply that it's good. But actually the average American is responsible for more than twice as much CO2 as the average European. (16.6 tonnes per person compared to 6.7 in the EU 28 according to this week's report.)
US technology has a good deal of catching up to do in this respect.
3
@Bellingham
Sorta, kinda. The increase in atmospheric carbon - and methane - has been a many decades-long global project. "trump", horrific tho he be, has only been on the scene for about 3 yrs and his policies have not really had that large an effect in the grand scheme. Yet. Not good and wrong direction, but, realistically, his impact is a drop in the bucket.
Think about your daily life and try to assess what impact "trump" has had on what you do, the car you drive, etc., etc. Then imagine your life if Clinton had not been usurped: would your carbon expenditures be significantly different? Probably not. And "trump" does not prevent you from altering your life to lessen your carbon footprint. You can still do it: stop driving, flying, consuming so many products, etc., etc.
Problem is, 7.7 billion of us, within our vastly different geopolitical and economic circumstances, on a DAILY, monthly, yearly basis DO NOT want anything to be changed in terms of our carbon footprints. Not really. In fact we all still want more and more. And, at the slightest indication that the economy is dipping, we all frantically start trying to shore up the gears of the economy because we have to. We are in a death-grip with the absolute imperative of ever-expanding economies. Tinker with that basic dynamic and you will have global epic strife. Meanwhile population ticks ever upwards - about 80 million additional hungry mouths yearly. Further stressing the closed, limited system that Earth is.
4
@Londoner yeah, poor phrasing. What I really meant was it's an opportunity for us to create and improve green technologies to make our lives "even better" than we could hope for today. I don't believe technology will save us, but I do believe we can mitigate the fall out and improve our relationship with our ecosystem
Perfect example of why we must focus on long term solutions to our climate crisis. The most effective step is to pass legislation limiting carbon emissions. There is a bill in the House of Representatives right now, HR 763, that proposes a fee on carbon at the source, with the money collected being returned to the public via dividend checks, similar to the program now in place in Canada. Soon, it will be too late. Check out this bill and, if it makes sense to you, tell your legislators to pass it!
57
@Susan
Why would I want a dividend check from sources destroying the planet? Use the money to make those sources obsolete instead of letting the sheeple get a free Iphone or whatever.
8