World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

[webfact]

World at risk of heading towards irreversible 'hothouse' state

By Nina Chestney

 

FILE PHOTO: People take part in protests ahead of a G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany July 2, 2017. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The world is at risk of entering "hothouse" conditions where global average temperatures will be 4-5 degrees Celsius higher even if emissions reduction targets under a global climate deal are met, scientists said in a study published on Monday.

 

The report comes amid a heatwave that has pushed temperatures above 40C (104 Fahrenheit) in Europe this summer, causing drought and wildfires, including blazes in Greece in July that killed 91 people.

 

Around 200 countries agreed in 2015 to limit temperature rise to "well below" 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, a threshold believed to be a tipping point for the climate.

 

However, it is not clear whether the world's climate can be safely "parked" near 2C above pre-industrial levels or whether this might trigger other processes which drive further warming even if the world stops emitting greenhouse gases, the research said.

 

Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1C above the pre-industrial period and rising at 0.17C each decade.

 

Scientists from the Stockholm Resilience Center, the University of Copenhagen, Australian National University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said it is likely that if a critical threshold is crossed, several tipping points will lead to abrupt change.

 

Such processes include permafrost thaw; the loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor; weaker land and ocean carbon sinks; the loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the reduction of Antarctic sea ice and polar ice sheets.

 

"These tipping elements can potentially act like a row of dominoes. Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another," said Johan Rockström, co-author of the report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

 

"It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over. Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if 'Hothouse Earth' becomes the reality," he said.

 

Maximising the chances of avoiding such a "hothouse" state requires more than just reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the report said.

 

For example, improved forest, agricultural and soil management; biodiversity conservation and technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground are needed.

 

Commenting on the research, some experts said uncontrolled warming is still uncertain but not implausible.

 

"In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight," said Phil Williamson, climate researcher at the University of East Anglia.

 

The study is available at: http://www.pnas.org

 

(Reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by Catherine Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-08-07

[Lungstib]

A recent Youtube that I watched mentioned the extreme long life of carbon in the atmosphere and suggested it was far more resilient than radiation in that over 1000 years it would still exist even though diminishes by a factor of 2 or 3. In effect everything we add in the next hundred years stays on top of what we already have. If that is so I see no escape, earth is doomed.

[KittenKong]

All the ecological problems that the world faces stem from one very simple fact: there are far too many people on it.

 

Ninety percent need to be culled, and that would put things back into order. Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job.

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

All the ecological problems that the world faces stem from one very simple fact: there are far too many people on it.

 

Ninety percent need to be culled, and that would put things back into order. Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job.

Are you volunteering?

[RickBradford]

What a thoroughly shoddy article.

 

Quote

Around 200 countries agreed in 2015 to limit temperature rise to "well below" 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, a threshold believed to be a tipping point for the climate.

 

Believed? Believed by whom? In fact, invented by a German climate scientist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber when Chancellor Merkel asked him about the risks of dangerous climate change.

 

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber [when interviewed by Der Spiegel], director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target. "Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling.

 

Not surprising, then, to see Schnellnhuber's name among the authors of this study. Once you've got a good hobby horse, you might as well keep riding it.

 

And what do these authors want? New Planetary Person, no less.

 

Quote

" .. decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values."

 

Why not stick to the science, eh?

 

"In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight," 

 

Good tactic. Always get your denial in first.

 

He cried and scream'd with all his might,— “Wolf! wolf!” in a pretended fright. 
Some people, working at a distance, Came running in to his assistance. 
They search'd the fields and bushes round, The Wolf was no where to be found. 
The Boy, delighted with his game, A few days after did the same, And once again the People came. 
 

[car720]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you volunteering?

beat me to it. 

[DoctorG]

If you would like to get a different perspective.

 

 

[bandito]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

All the ecological problems that the world faces stem from one very simple fact: there are far too many people on it.

 

Ninety percent need to be culled, and that would put things back into order. Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job.

 

You're 100% right.

I've been thinking along the same lines for a long time.

Too many people on the planet.

For example Thailand had in 1946 a population of 18 million which is now 67 million.

China went from 900 million to 1.3 billion.

Something will happen.

Probably a nuclear war so we can start anew.

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, Lungstib said:

A recent Youtube that I watched mentioned the extreme long life of carbon in the atmosphere and suggested it was far more resilient than radiation in that over 1000 years it would still exist even though diminishes by a factor of 2 or 3. In effect everything we add in the next hundred years stays on top of what we already have. If that is so I see no escape, earth is doomed.

Earth will be fine. It's been around for a while, will be for a while longer. It's the current fauna and flora that won't be so fine...

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

What a thoroughly shoddy article.

 

 

Believed? Believed by whom? In fact, invented by a German climate scientist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber when Chancellor Merkel asked him about the risks of dangerous climate change.

 

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber [when interviewed by Der Spiegel], director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target. "Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling.

 

Not surprising, then, to see Schnellnhuber's name among the authors of this study. Once you've got a good hobby horse, you might as well keep riding it.

 

And what do these authors want? New Planetary Person, no less.

 

 

Why not stick to the science, eh?

 

"In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight," 

 

Good tactic. Always get your denial in first.

 

He cried and scream'd with all his might,— “Wolf! wolf!” in a pretended fright. 
Some people, working at a distance, Came running in to his assistance. 
They search'd the fields and bushes round, The Wolf was no where to be found. 
The Boy, delighted with his game, A few days after did the same, And once again the People came. 
 

Why not stick to the science, eh? Because the science has already built enough knowledge for us to understand that this is real and a danger to our survival. And given that knowledge, how do some people react? By sticking their heads in the sand and wishing the problem would go away, or outright denial of what is incontrovertible. 

 

So great to see the generation that callously destroyed the planet with their conspicuous consumption and me-first economics gleefully watching it burn knowing that they'll be long dead by the time it really hits the fan. Something to be real proud of.

[nobodysfriend]

It was mankinds heritage to keep this planet in good condition ... but greed , stupidity , consumerism and selfishness ruined it .

Now people will need to adapt to climate change ... draught , inondations , storms , polluted water , heatwaves followed by ice cold winters , duststorms , landslides , broken dams and much more ...

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by nobodysfriend

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you volunteering?

I'm already doing my part: I have no children and never will.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Lungstib said:

A recent Youtube that I watched mentioned the extreme long life of carbon in the atmosphere and suggested it was far more resilient than radiation in that over 1000 years it would still exist even though diminishes by a factor of 2 or 3. In effect everything we add in the next hundred years stays on top of what we already have. If that is so I see no escape, earth is doomed.

 

" Aye, we're all doomed, doomed I say"

 

Time to launch a Star Trek and find a new paradise planet.

 

 

[wombat]

back to this old chestnut again....ive told you more than once the hole in the ozone layer let all the greenhouse gas escape into space...there is no problem.

[nobodysfriend]

26 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

" Aye, we're all doomed, doomed I say"

 

Time to launch a Star Trek and find a new paradise planet.

 

 

Ha ha ... but really ... there will never be another planet for us to live on ... we only have this one .

It is and will never be possible to travel faster than the speed of light ... next available planet is something like 2000 light years away ....

Or go to Mars ...but there is nothing ...

[malibukid]

fake news

[malibukid]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

All the ecological problems that the world faces stem from one very simple fact: there are far too many people on it.

 

Ninety percent need to be culled, and that would put things back into order. Hopefully some epidemic will come along and do the job.

i agree, people should have to get a license to have children and credit approval just like buy a house or car.  limit size of family screen parents for potential genetic defects that could be passed down to the kids like a propensity for depression, alcoholism, heart disease and other illness.  humans are not rational beings.  women are weak and men are dogs.  

[PhonThong]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Earth will be fine. It's been around for a while, will be for a while longer. It's the current fauna and flora that won't be so fine...

Your right. Earth will be fine. It's the people that are screwed.

[ResandePohm]

37 minutes ago, malibukid said:

fake news

I see you are as smart as Trump.

[connda]

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

""In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight," said Phil Williamson, climate researcher at the University of East Anglia."

More fear mongering.  East Anglia?  That noble institution where researchers got caught cooking up climatological data in 2009?  That East Anglia?    OK.  Sure...... 

 

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

Why not stick to the science, eh? Because the science has already built enough knowledge for us to understand that this is real and a danger to our survival.

I doubt that you will find any reputable scientist to say that global warming is "a danger to our survival". Bob Geldof and Prince Charles said it, but that's about it. The UN doesn't agree, the World Bank doesn't agree, politicians don't agree, Greenpeace doesn't agree, or even "Weepy" Bill McKibben. That just leaves the real nutjobs.

 

Everyone is reacting as though this were a new story. It isn't. An article in 2012 produced almost identical ideas, beginning:

 

"The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday."

 

There are good reasons for the similarity. It was published by the same company (Reuters), and written by the same journalist (Nina Chestney). And even the scientists were some of the same people, including lead author Will Steffen, who was quoted extensively.

 

So, why rehash it now? Well, there's just been a heatwave in Europe. Time to rush out a new story demanding political change while everyone's paying attention. The journalist does virtually no work and gets a new article, Reuters gets clickbait, Steffen et al get to push their political and economic barrow. What's not to like?

 

Overly cynical? Perhaps. But given the way the climate movement has operated in the past, I think that cynical is a better bet than naive.

 

 

[NCC1701A]

fortunately none of this will affect tourism in Thailand.

[JCauto]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I doubt that you will find any reputable scientist to say that global warming is "a danger to our survival". Bob Geldof and Prince Charles said it, but that's about it. The UN doesn't agree, the World Bank doesn't agree, politicians don't agree, Greenpeace doesn't agree, or even "Weepy" Bill McKibben. That just leaves the real nutjobs.

 

Everyone is reacting as though this were a new story. It isn't. An article in 2012 produced almost identical ideas, beginning:

 

"The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday."

 

There are good reasons for the similarity. It was published by the same company (Reuters), and written by the same journalist (Nina Chestney). And even the scientists were some of the same people, including lead author Will Steffen, who was quoted extensively.

 

So, why rehash it now? Well, there's just been a heatwave in Europe. Time to rush out a new story demanding political change while everyone's paying attention. The journalist does virtually no work and gets a new article, Reuters gets clickbait, Steffen et al get to push their political and economic barrow. What's not to like?

 

Overly cynical? Perhaps. But given the way the climate movement has operated in the past, I think that cynical is a better bet than naive.

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-scientists-warning-climate-change-global-warming-experts-a8243606.html

 

What patent nonsense you write. And yes, when we observe wildfires breaking out in greater severity than seen before across multiple countries while we observe that the data tells us the four hottest years on record for the planet were 2015, 2016, 2017 and, so far, 2018 that is not us opportunistically cherry-picking results that suit our predictions. It's our predictions turning out to be true. 

As noted in my other post, quite hypocritical and disgusting to observe the generation that led us into this mess that our children will be the unfortunate heirs to absolving themselves or responsibility and actively working to prevent even minor mitigation efforts.

 

 

[micmichd]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Are you volunteering?

Silly question. Simply stop making children, that'll do. Especially children in the Northern Hemisphere produce too much pollution, so start there - or face enforced sterilization.

[RickBradford]

12 minutes ago, JCauto said:

As noted in my other post, quite hypocritical and disgusting to observe the generation that led us into this mess that our children will be the unfortunate heirs to absolving themselves or responsibility and actively working to prevent even minor mitigation efforts.

You seem to be holding an argument with somebody whose views on climate bear no resemblance to mine whatever.

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

You seem to be holding an argument with somebody whose views on climate bear no resemblance to mine whatever.

Oh really? So you do think that anthropomorphic climate change is real and is already causing unusual weather events and an increase in their frequency and severity. Well done then, carry on. You have an unusual way of expressing your agreement though, which seems to be writing the opposite of what you actually intend to mean...

[micmichd]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

I'm already doing my part: I have no children and never will.

So did I. I volunteered for vasectomy in Germany, so I don't contribute to overpopulation.

[Snow Leopard]

Many good points on this thread.

 

By far the cleanest energy on the planet right now is Natural Gas. Of course this is a fossil fuel but you get a lot more bang for your buck when you burn it. Some might say nuclear but at some point you have to decommission the plant. Also Uranium is required for these power stations. Another finite resource. 

 

Bat and Bird Bashers along with solar panels are okay for small local use. In reality though they consume more carbon fuels and energy to produce than they can ever pay back economically. Most of these types of energy are government subsided at some point. 

 

Also there is another point suggested that the planet has been warming up naturally over a few 1000 years because we are still coming out of an ice age in planet terms. Who knows. Half the crap i read is total nonsense anyway on both sides.

 

The world needs a new clean energy source. Its as simple as that. Start putting the R&D into a cheap worldwide clean energy source that is economical and non polluting. Instead of all these politically motivated and stupid ideas,  I can't stand all these green do gooders who go to do a protest march or demonstration in their cars. I have seen this first hand. We cant all go back to living in caves and living of the land. So if you actually promote this lifestyle for everyone like the greenies, You would also need to exterminate half the people on the planet to make it work.

 

Also we need to stop breeding for a while. Good luck with that as well.

 

Its a seriously complicated issue. You cant just say we should do this or do that. There are many facets to this problem.

[micmichd]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

I doubt that you will find any reputable scientist to say that global warming is "a danger to our survival". Bob Geldof and Prince Charles said it, but that's about it. The UN doesn't agree, the World Bank doesn't agree, politicians don't agree, Greenpeace doesn't agree, or even "Weepy" Bill McKibben. That just leaves the real nutjobs.

 

Everyone is reacting as though this were a new story. It isn't. An article in 2012 produced almost identical ideas, beginning:

 

"The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday."

 

There are good reasons for the similarity. It was published by the same company (Reuters), and written by the same journalist (Nina Chestney). And even the scientists were some of the same people, including lead author Will Steffen, who was quoted extensively.

 

So, why rehash it now? Well, there's just been a heatwave in Europe. Time to rush out a new story demanding political change while everyone's paying attention. The journalist does virtually no work and gets a new article, Reuters gets clickbait, Steffen et al get to push their political and economic barrow. What's not to like?

 

Overly cynical? Perhaps. But given the way the climate movement has operated in the past, I think that cynical is a better bet than naive.

 

 

Ever heard of the Club of Rome's report (Limits to growth)? That was published in 1972, so the current situation should not be a surprise. 

You could count half of Africa's population as victims of the climate change - what do you think the refugee crisis in Europe comes from?

[The Deerhunter]

3 hours ago, KittenKong said:

I'm already doing my part: I have no children and never will.

Good.  Ditto me.  Just hoping Elon Musk is not 10 or 20 years too late.