[ad_1]
Science
Published on November 14, 2020 |
by Steve Hanley
November 14, 2020 of Steve Hanley
It’s 1987 and REM have just released their proto-dystopian classic “It’s the end of the world as we know it”. Fast forward 33 years and that song’s prophecy is about to come true, Norwegian Business School researchers say. “According to our models, humanity is past the tipping point when it comes to stopping permafrost melting by using greenhouse gas cuts as the only tool,” Jorgen Randers, lead author and emeritus professor of strategy, told AFP. for the climate. “If we want to stop this fusion process we have to do something more – for example, suck CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground and make the Earth’s surface brighter.”
The study, published in Scientific Reports, contains the following synopsis.
The possibility of tipping points in the climate system has been debated for two decades. A point of no return can be seen as a threshold which, once crossed, radically changes the dynamics of the climate system. For example, triggering irreversible processes such as the melting of permafrost, the drying of rainforests or the acidification of surface waters. Recently, Lenton et al. summarized the global situation and warned that the thresholds may be closer in time than is commonly believed.
The purpose of this article is to report that we have identified a tipping point in our ESCIMO climate model, and that it has already passed. ESCIMO is a climate model of a “reduced complexity earth system” that we used from 1850 to 2500. In ESCIMO, the global temperature continues to rise to 2500 and beyond, regardless of the rate at which humanity reduces its greenhouse gas emissions. by man. The reason is a self-sustaining melting cycle of permafrost (caused by the release of methane), lower surface albedo (caused by melting ice and snow), and higher atmospheric humidity (caused by higher temperatures). This cycle appears to be triggered by global warming of just + 0.5 ° C above the pre-industrial level.
Standing tall in Deep Doo Doo
The message is clear. We humans have already made the Earth unsuitable for human habitation. We do not know yet. The warmer temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution – which may seem mild to the average observer – have unleashed a Pandora’s box of cascading consequences that will doom us all. The heartfelt statements from business leaders and financiers about reducing carbon and methane emissions? Too little and too late. The promises to reach net zero by 2050? Useless postures designed to reassure the feeble-minded. As Paul Simon once sang: “We work in our work. Collect our pay. I believe we are sliding down the highway when we are actually sliding away. “
EcoWatch reports that the researchers used their model to see what would happen by 2500 if the increases in emissions stopped today and if they slowly dropped to zero by 2100. In the first scenario, temperatures would still rise to around 2.3 degrees Celsius above. pre-industrial levels within the next 50 years gradually decline, then rise from 2150. By 2500, the world would be about three degrees Celsius warmer and sea level would rise by about three meters. In the second, the rise in temperature and sea level would end in the same place, but the rise in temperature would be much faster.
The only way uncontrolled climate change could have been avoided is if humans stopped burning fossil fuels between 1960 and 1970, according to the ESCIMO model. To stop rising temperatures and sea levels now, we would have to remove at least 33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year starting with this. [Note: the likelihood of removing that much carbon dioxide before the end of 2020 is absurdly remote.]
Push Back and Brickbats
The study authors, Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke, freely admit that the climate model they used is simplistic and encourage other scientists to take their research as a starting point and move forward with it. “This document can clearly be cited in support of a misleading message that it is now ‘too late’ to avoid catastrophic climate change, which could potentially cause unnecessary despair,” said Richard Betts, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter, who pointed out. that the model used by the IPCC is much more sophisticated and complex. “The study is nowhere near strong enough to make such a scary message believable,” he adds.
Penn State University meteorologist Michael Mann agrees, saying the ESCIMO model is not very complex and does not accurately reproduce atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems. “While such models may be useful for conceptual inferences, their predictions must be taken with great skepticism. Much more realistic climate models that solve the large-scale dynamics of the ocean, atmosphere and carbon cycle DO NOT produce the dramatic changes these authors claim based on their much simplified model. It has to be taken not just with a grain of salt, but with a whole salt shaker worthy of salt, ”Mann told USA Today.
Fuel for the fire
Mark Maslin, a professor of climate science at University College London, sees some benefits from the study which he says warns that reducing global carbon emissions to zero by 2050 is just the beginning of the actions that will be needed to address effectively climate change. But there is a downside to these simplistic studies that cannot be ignored. The general public does not understand the scientific investigation process enough to grasp such subtleties. Reports like this tend to provide ammunition for climate deniers who claim that all climate scientists are charlatans who engage in the fight against fear to boost their careers.
“To be frank, the document is crap that shouldn’t have passed any competent peer review,” Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist and energy systems analyst, tells Gizmodo. “It’s an interesting thought experiment, but its results should be taken with extreme skepticism until more complex models of the Earth System produce similar results.”
Hausfather and his colleague Glenn Peters wrote an article in Nature earlier this year begging their fellow scientists to stop publishing worst-case scenarios. “We must all – from physical scientists and climate impact modelers to communicators and policy makers – stop presenting the worst case scenario as the most likely one. Overestimating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem more difficult than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as out of control and unsolvable. Urgently, it could result in inadequate planning, while a more realistic range of baseline scenarios will strengthen climate risk assessment. “
Climate models and compasses
Discussing which climate model is more accurate diverts our attention from what’s most important: the Earth is warming and may soon be too hot to support human habitation. Whether this happens in 50 or 500 years is irrelevant. If we had found a way to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions sixty years ago, when the effects of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere became known, we could easily have avoided the crisis we are facing today. But we didn’t and now the task is immensely more difficult. How do we go on from listening? This is how a writer I have in high regard puts it.
“A climate model is like a compass. It is a guide, a tool, but it cannot replace the human brain. The more time we spend discussing which climate model is more accurate, the sooner we will cease to exist as a species. There is only one solution to the challenge of climate change. Stop mining and burning fossil fuels. Point. Nothing else matters. And the time to start finding alternatives to fossil fuels is today, not tomorrow. We are in a race against time and we are dangerously behind.
“One thing is certain. It will take all of humanity to work together to win the battle. Unfortunately, the movement to demonize” the other “in countries around the world is gaining popularity and making this cooperation less and less likely. power to leverage our collective intelligence, but will we choose to use it while we still have time? There is no compass or climate model on Earth that can answer this question. ” Will we be able to protect our tiny lifeboat at the far end of the universe? “We will see”, see the Zen master.
Do you appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica member, supporter or ambassador, or a Patreon patron.
Sign up for our free daily newsletter or weekly newsletter to never miss a story.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise or suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Latest episode of Cleantech Talk
About the author
Steve Hanley Steve writes about the interface between technology and sustainability from his homes in Florida and Connecticut or anywhere else the Singularity can bring him. You can follow it Twitter but not on any social media platform run by evil gentlemen like Facebook.
[ad_2]
Source link
