Two degree Celsius warming locks in sea level rise for thousands of years but there is a way forward

davfor

I have been ruminating about the first article linked below for several days. My thinking had been that we will probably muddle through without suffering dramatic repercussions due to global warming (a basic ostrich approach to problem solving). This article suggests my thinking has been naively optimistic. And, the research does not appear to be fringe science alarmism.

Recent polls suggest most segments of the US public are now on board in thinking that global warming is really happening. So, can that fragile consensus get translated into sacrificing now for the benefit of future generations? The second article, which I just read today, suggests there may be a plausible way forward -- without the need to wait to obtain global agreement concerning fair burden sharing -- if the US or the EU is willing to take the lead.

Edit: I am adding a third article that discusses the substantial negative impact global warming may have on US GDP by 2100. It suggests a selfish reason the US might want to look at sacrificing more now than some other countries.

Here are a few excerpts from the first article:

"A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C-2°C will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise, according to new research published in Nature."

"The striking thing about these findings is that we have taken the most conservative estimates possible...."

"It becomes an issue of whether we choose to mitigate now for the benefit of future generations or adapt to a world in which shorelines are significantly re-drawn."

"...the last time CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere were similar to present levels was about three million years ago. "At that time average global temperatures were two or three degrees warmer, large parts of the Antarctic ice-sheet had melted, and sea-levels were a staggering 20 metres higher than they are now.""

Here is the University of South Wale's take on the Problem.

Here is the Postdam Institute recommendation of a possible Solution.

Here is an article that suggests possible country by country GDP Impacts by 2100 associated with global warming.

Dex

If we do nothing; when is the point of no return for global warming?

LewisBraham

@Dex, That depends on how you define the point of no return. A significant number of scientists say we have already passed the point of no return. But what that means is that many species will go extinct and millions of humans will die or be displaced because of climate change. That doesn't mean the end of humanity. What to me is far more dangerous in the short-term and not being discussed enough at all is the potential for a major war because of climate change. People tend to get angry when they lose their homes and lack food and water and that can cause the rise of radical political parties. Many developing nations are not equipped to handle major food, water and refugee crises. In fact, some would argue not even the U.S. is fully equipped. In any case, if climate change ultimately sparks a major war, all bets for humanity are off. I think ensuring those who ultimately lose their homes to climate change have adequate food, shelter and water will be as important as reducing our carbon footprint in the future.

davfor

@Dex The primary researcher states their research indicates "Without significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the next couple of decades, we will commit the Antarctic ice sheet to ongoing and widespread melting for the next few thousand years." So, he is not presenting an "apocalypse now" scenario. Rather, he is suggesting the situation is currently serious and will becoming increasingly irreversible the longer the world waits to act decisively.

LewisBraham

@davfor, I agree the situation purely on a climate basis is not apocalyptic and I'm sorry if my post sounded that way. It is more humanity's reaction to it that could be apocalyptic. Your first article states: "The stakes are obviously very high -- 10 percent of the world's population lives within 10 metres of present sea level." That displacement alone could cause dramatic political strife. And that ignores the increasing likelihood of famines and water shortages due to weather extremes from climate change. This should not be an end of the world scenario so long as no one starts a war.

davfor

@LewisBraham I must have pushed the Post Comment button 1/2 second after you did. I had not read your post when mine was made. My intent was not to minimize the potential scope of the problem. Rather, it was to suggest the author was not being alarmist. Thanks for adding your thoughts about the increased potential for war and other human suffering.

Dex

LewisBraham said:

@Dex, That depends on how you define the point of no return. A significant number of scientists say we have already passed the point of no return.

My gut tells me the same thing. And the cause in population growth in the poorest parts of the world - a band around the world from Mexico to Middle East to India, Indonesia, China. These are poor places that are modernizing and can not afford higher non greenhouse gas producing energy. Also, as developed nations such as the USA and Europe get poorer, they will cut back on their global warming work.

Dex

davfor said:

@Dex The primary researcher states their research indicates "Without significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the next couple of decades, we will commit the Antarctic ice sheet to ongoing and widespread melting for the next few thousand years."

One aspect in the global warming discussion I've always seen missing is perspective. What is significant? What does it look like? Is it realistically doable?

davfor

@Dex said: One aspect in the global warming discussion I've always seen missing is perspective. What is significant? What does it look like? Is it realistically doable?

A technical response from Golledge as to what is significant is "We find that substantial Antarctic ice loss can be prevented only by limiting greenhouse gas emissions to RCP 2.6 levels. Higher-emissions scenarios lead to ice loss from Antarctic that will raise sea level by 0.6–3 metres by the year 2300." That's about 2 to 10 feet. (But then the problem continues to ramp up in future centuries.)

I think your question about what is doable gets at the notion of how much this research suggests needs to be sacrificed now to prevent the higher-emissions scenarios from occurring. The Potsdam Institute article had the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C. That agrees with Golledge's 2 degree maximum increase to prevent substantial Antarctic ice loss. The Potsdam Institute projects that if the US takes the global lead in reducing emissions "the US national emissions reduction target would have to be roughly 50 percent instead of currently 22-24 percent below 2010 levels by 2030." So, the US would need to slightly more than double the rate of reduction over the next 15 years if the US takes the lead. I am not a technical expert and do not know how that rate of reduction would translate into increased life style and living standards changes. But it doesn't sound to be draconian. Maybe someone can flesh that out for us. (I also wonder if the US could partner with the EU to share the burden.)

I hope this helps.

Dex

davfor said:

A technical response from Golledge as to what is significant is

The 50% is a goal for the USA not the world.

What would have to be done (not goals) and is it realistic to avoid the point of no return? Describe the world - e.g. would private cars have be outlawed tomorrow? I don't think you have the answer - the point is no one can tell us.

Read this - do we have to eat less?
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jul/03/we-need-to-grow-50-more-food-yet-agriculture-causes-climate-change-how-do-we-get-out-of-this-bind
We need to grow 50% more food yet agriculture causes climate change. How do we get out of this bind?

davfor

@Dex This is a global problem and will require a global solution. My goal with this post is simply to highlight some of the current thinking on the topic and to learn. Your article about agricultural production was instructive. Jeremy Grantham has made similar points about population growth, food production, and climate change.

The most promising approach the world currently has going for it appears to involve building upon the current international agreements related to climate change. That is what the upcoming Paris Climate Summit is intended to do. Here is a Link that takes you to the Climate Action Tracker home page. You can click on the global map to read about the progress each participating country has made towards meeting their current goals.

Making progress will undoubtedly require life style changes. (I presume part of current push towards self driving cars is a response to existing commitments.) But significant changes evolve over decades rather than months or years. So, there will be time to adjust. Its clear to me there is no assurance of success for any approach. But, pursuing the "do nothing" alternative surely doesn't appear to be attractive when viewed over a multi generational time frame.

FWIW

bee

The UN and the rest of NYC could start by drinking really good NYC tap water. Here's the carbon footprint of bottled water coming into NYC from Europe and Fiji:

DanHardy

davfor said:

@Dex This is a global problem and will require a global solution. My goal with this post is simply to highlight some of the current thinking on the topic and to learn. Your article about agricultural production was instructive. Jeremy Grantham has made similar points about population growth, food production, and climate change.

The most promising approach the world currently has going for it appears to involve building upon the current international agreements related to climate change. That is what the upcoming Paris Climate Summit is intended to do. Here is a Link that takes you to the Climate Action Tracker home page. You can click on the global map to read about the progress each participating country has made towards meeting their current goals.

Making progress will undoubtedly require life style changes. (I presume part of current push towards self driving cars is a response to existing commitments.) But significant changes evolve over decades rather than months or years. So, there will be time to adjust. Its clear to me there is no assurance of success for any approach. But, pursuing the "do nothing" alternative surely doesn't appear to be attractive when viewed over a multi generational time frame.

FWIW

There certainly a lot of food for thought in the links. After reading about this subject for years I still do not feel I understand much of it. There is a lot of dire warnings. But I still do not feel those talking about global warming have effectively described where we are in the process. As another poster mentioned where is the point of no return? Do we have 5, 50 or 500 years to work on the issue? If it is 50 or 100 years, can the world reasonably make changes to stop global warming?

I'm unsure if I conveyed my thoughts properly. But, to me that is what is missing in the global warming discussion. Have you found any information about that?

davfor

@DanHardy said: ".....where is the point of no return? Do we have 5, 50 or 500 years to work on the issue? If it is 50 or 100 years, can the world reasonably make changes to stop global warming?". DanHardy also said "...can the world reasonably make changes to stop global warming?"

Here is an answer to your first question from the perspective of the The University of Wales study I posted above. It described the point of no return as involving "A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C" that "will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise". They stated that "the next couple of decades" is available to achieve a "significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions" and thereby to avoid having the world break through that 1.5°C to 2°C threshold. They think that if the world misses that deadline "we will commit the Antarctic ice sheet to ongoing and widespread melting for the next few thousand years". In that regard, they add that "Missing the 2°C target will result in an Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise that could be up to 10 metres higher than today," and also add "The stakes are obviously very high -- 10 percent of the world's population lives within 10 metres of present sea level." Obviously, their models are just models. So, I am fairly certain they would not tell you that a 2.1°C temperature increase or a 21 year lead time would doom the world to the worst case outcome.

The answer to your second question from the perspective of the Potsdam Institute article starts with their statement the world can achieve the 2°C target if the US and/or the EU substantially increase the reductions in emissions they have so far agreed to achieve by 2030. If other countries also agree to additional emissions decreases that would reduce the additional contributions needed from the US and/or the EU. The question of reasonableness involves the willingness of the populations of the impacted countries to make the life style changes necessary to achieve the more aggressive targets. Having the US achieve somewhat more than double the reductions it has already agreed to -- if it were to act with no additional support from other countries -- would obviously have the most impact on the US. I am not knowledgeable enough to speculate about the details of how that would impact our day to day living. And, there would be thousands of paths to the goal. But, I am reasonably certain we could still function as a dynamic 21st Century country.

It seems to me that as a practical matter the path forward will need to involve additional changes in behavior by citizens of at least several advanced countries, perhaps with the US in the lead. But, if the projections made by the University of Wales are anywhere near to being accurate, the failure to act will eventually force substantial and much more inequitable and chaotic sacrifices on us anyway. Inaction is just action of a different sort.

FWIW

Dex

davfor said:

Here is an answer to your first question from the perspective of the The University of Wales study I posted above. It described the point of no return as involving "A jump in global average temperatures of 1.5°C to 2°C" that "will see the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves and lead to hundreds and even thousands of years of sea level rise". They stated that "the next couple of decades" is available to achieve a "significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions" and thereby to avoid having the world break through that 1.5°C to 2°C threshold. They think that if the world misses that deadline "we will commit the Antarctic ice sheet to ongoing and widespread melting for the next few thousand years". In that regard, they add that "Missing the 2°C target will result in an Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise that could be up to 10 metres higher than today," and also add "The stakes are obviously very high -- 10 percent of the world's population lives within 10 metres of present sea level." Obviously, their models are just models. So, I am fairly certain they would not tell you that a 2.1°C temperature increase or a 21 year lead time would doom the world to the worst case outcome.

The answer to your second question from the perspective of the Potsdam Institute article starts with their statement the world can achieve the 2°C target if the US and/or the EU substantially increase the reductions in emissions they have so far agreed to achieve by 2030. If other countries also agree to additional emissions decreases that would reduce the additional contributions needed from the US and/or the EU. The question of reasonableness involves the willingness of the populations of the impacted countries to make the life style changes necessary to achieve the more aggressive targets. Having the US achieve somewhat more than double the reductions it has already agreed to -- if it were to act with no additional support from other countries -- would obviously have the most impact on the US. I am not knowledgeable enough to speculate about the details of how that would impact our day to day living. And, there would be thousands of paths to the goal. But, I am reasonably certain we could still function as a dynamic 21st Century country.

It seems to me that as a practical matter the path forward will need to involve additional changes in behavior by citizens of at least several advanced countries, perhaps with the US in the lead. But, if the projections made by the University of Wales are anywhere near to being accurate, the failure to act will eventually force substantial and much more chaotic sacrifices on us anyway. Inaction is just action of a different sort.

FWIW

Excuse me for jumping into the conversation. But neither question is answered.
First - does not give a time period
Second - does not tell us how the additional reductions would be made, if they reasonably would be adopted. It does not tell us if we move the point of no return out for 10 years or 100 years or forever.

Is 2030 the point of no return?

The question I asked about 'the point of now return' is the great failure of the global warming discussion. It has never been answered.

On the path the world is on now, with the agreed to reductions and all other initiatives: When is the point of no return? It is a simple question that points out the Achilles Heal of the global warming discussion.

Which leads to the next question: Along with addressing global warming, should the world be preparing for the effects of global warming - e.g. rising sea levels? Instead of maintaining the New Orleans levees which will be overwhelmed, should the money be spent moving the inhabitants?

davfor

@Dex I don't recall reading about any studies that project the extinction of our species if humans do not act to reduce the level of global warming. So, I am not aware there is thought to be a "point of no return". My answer to DanHardy's question indicated the University of Wales report states there will be significant changes in the sea level and related impacts on global coastal populations if the recommended caps are not achieved within 20 years. But, that is not a "point of no return". Rather, their study indicates that not achieving the caps means more chaos and human suffering will result than would occur if more active preventative action is taken (LewisBraham also posted a comment that spoke to this issue.)

Their report also states that ""It becomes an issue of whether we choose to mitigate now for the benefit of future generations or adapt to a world in which shorelines are significantly re-drawn. In all likelihood we're going to have to do both, because we are already committed to 25 centimetres by 2050, and at least 50 centimetres of sea-level rise by 2100." Here they are stating that some adapting to changing coastlines will need to occur due to sea level changes already "baked in the cake" even if future global temperature increases are minimal. This addresses your question about the need to do things like paying to assist people to move away from low lying coastal areas.

Dex

davfor said:

@Dex I don't recall reading about any studies that project the extinction of our species if humans do not act to reduce the level of global warming. So, I am not aware there is thought to be a "point of no return". My answer to DanHardy's question indicated the University of Wales report states there will be significant changes in the sea level and related impacts on global coastal populations if the recommended caps are not achieved within 20 years. But, that is not a "point of no return". Rather, their study indicates that not achieving the caps means more chaos and human suffering will result than would occur if more active preventative action is taken (LewisBraham also posted a comment that spoke to this issue.)

Their report also states that ""It becomes an issue of whether we choose to mitigate now for the benefit of future generations or adapt to a world in which shorelines are significantly re-drawn. In all likelihood we're going to have to do both, because we are already committed to 25 centimetres by 2050, and at least 50 centimetres of sea-level rise by 2100." Here they are stating that some adapting to changing coastlines will need to occur due to sea level changes already "baked in the cake" even if future global temperature increases are minimal. This addresses your question about the need to do things like paying to assist people to move away from low lying coastal areas.

I agree that does help with a time period. The idea of a point of no return is not about the death of the human species. It is that we have no viable options to change course and the effects of global warming become inevitable.
The discussion about addressing global warming has pushed out the discussion about addressing the effects. The discussion about global warming usually is, if not addressed X could happen.
In the USA for example, millions/billions? is spent on preventing/addressing beach erosion. That should be stopped. Homes should not be allowed to be build below a certain level above sea level. The money spent on repairing the levees and other things in New Orleans should have been re-directed to moving the population to higher ground.

This is not happening.

The reason I do not worry too much about global warming is because I will be dead before the effects occur and I'm not a beach person.

bee

Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution:

"Six years ago the... International Energy Agency (IEA) was still predicting that solar power would struggle to reach 20 gigawatts by now. Few could have foretold that it would in fact explode to 180 gigawatts - over three times Britain’s total power output - as costs plummeted, and that almost half of all new electricity installed in the US in 2013 and 2014 would come from solar."

Now lets improve energy storage technology.

Paris-climate-deal-to-ignite-a-90-trillion-energy-revolution

bee

Documentary on Air Pollution Grips China
documentary-on-air-pollution-in-china-grips-a-nation

davfor

@bee It will be helpful if quality of life issues cause some of the major emerging economies to hasten their transitions to less carbon intensive forms of energy generation. But, I am concerned that too much transitioning will need to occur for it to have a substantial impact within 20 years. (Let's hope there is more time than that available to make a substantial transition without locking in a draconian outcome over the long term.)

Here is a chart showing the sources of the energy consumed in China as of 2012:



From: China Getting Serious

Nasty old coal is where the power currently comes from. Unfortunately, solar doesn't even show up as an individual component of that chart.

Also, here are a couple of encouraging recent reports about research involving potential improvements in energy storage technology:

Splitting Water

Green Storage

Crash

Driest place in the world. Atacama desert, Chile. Blooming in pink. Spectacular view. But is it another indication that we've mucked it all up, already?
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2015-10-25/Bloomberg/04995633.jpg&w=1484

Edmond

Global warming causes 'rise' of 10-20 inches in Wisconsin:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snow-piles-up-beyond-expected-amounts-in-wisconsin-illinois/

Global 'climate-change' sets a record in Chicago:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/1121355/snow-pounds-north-suburbs-ohare-set-break-snow-record

Global warming causes travel advisory in DesMoines..
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/weather/2015/11/20/heavy-snowfall-coming-evening-commute/76095092/