Science
Published on November 14, 2020 |
By Steve Hanley
November 14, 2020 By Steve Henley
It’s 1987 and REMA recently released their proto-dystopian classic “We Know It’s the End of the World.” Researchers at the Norwegian Business School say that forward 33 years fast forward and that the prediction of the song is about to come true. “Humanity will not return when it comes to stopping the melting of permafrost as the only means of cutting greenhouse gases,” Georgin Renders, lead author and professor of meteorology, told AFP. “If we want to stop this melting process we have to do something more – for example, sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it underground and brightening the earth’s surface.”
The study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, includes the following summary.
The possibility of not getting points in the climate system has been under discussion for two decades. No compensation issue can be seen as a threshold that, once exceeded, fundamentally changes the dynamics of the climate system. For example, by melting permafrost, triggering irreversible processes such as drying of rainforests or acidification of surface water. Recently, Lenton et al. Summarized the global situation and warned that the threshold may be closer than usual.
The purpose of this article is to inform you that we have identified no compensation in our climate model ESCIMO no – and it is already behind us. ESCIMO is the “Dell Complex Earth System” climate model that we run from 1850 to 2500. At ESCIMO, global temperatures continue to rise to 2500 and above, no matter how quickly man-made greenhouse gas emissions are cut. This is due to a cycle of self-sustaining melting of permafrost (due to methane release), a cycle of lower surface albedo (due to melting of ice and snow) and higher atmospheric humidity (due to higher temperatures). This cycle appears to have emerged only + 0.5 ° C above the pre-industrial level by global warming.
Standing all over the deep doo doo
The message is clear. We humans have already made the earth unfit for human habitation. We don’t know that yet. The warming temperatures since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – which the average observer finds little – have yielded Pandora’s cascading results that will doom us all. Heartfelt announcements by corporate leaders and financiers about reducing carbon and methane emissions? Too little, too late. Promises to be zero-clean by 2050? Useless posture designed to comfort the weak mind. As Paul Simon once sang, “We work on our jobs. Collect our salaries. Believe that when we are gliding on the highway we will in fact slide slidein.
Echotch reports that researchers are using their model to see if the increase in emissions stops today and what will happen if it gradually goes to zero by 2100. At first glance, temperatures would still rise to around 2.3 degrees Celsius around pre-industrial levels. For the next 10 years, the cloth will be off, then it will start again from 2150. By 2500, the world will be as hot as three degrees Celsius and sea levels will rise by about three meters (9.8 feet). In the second, the rise in temperature and sea level would end in the same place, but the rise in temperature would happen very quickly.
According to the ESIMO model, if humans had stopped burning fossil fuels between 1960 and 1970, the only way to avoid climate change would have been by road. To prevent temperatures and sea levels from rising now, we need to release at least 33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. [Note: the likelihood of removing that much carbon dioxide before the end of 2020 is absurdly remote.]
Push back and brickbets
The study’s authors, Jજેrgen Renders and Ultric Goluke, freely adapt and simplify the climate model they use and encourage other scientists to take their research as a starting point and walk with it. “This paper can be cited in support of the misleading message that it is now ‘too late’ to avoid catastrophic climate change, which is likely to lead to unnecessary frustration,” says Richard Bates, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter. The incoming model is much more sophisticated and complex. “The study is not strong enough to make such a terrifying message credible.”
Michael Mann, a meteorologist at Penn State University, agrees, saying that the ESCIMO model is not too complex and does not accurately reproduce the atmospheric and ocean circulation system. “While such models may be useful for conceptual suggestions, their predictions must be taken with great skepticism. Many more real-world model models that deal with large-scale dynamics of the ocean, atmosphere, and carbon cycle do not produce the dramatic changes that their authors argue based on their very simple models. It must be valued not just for the grains of salt, but for the whole salt-shaker, ”Mann told USA Today.
Fuel for fire
Mark Muslin, a professor of meteorology at University College London, sees little benefit from his study, warning that reducing global carbon emissions to zero by 2050 is just the beginning of actions that will be needed to effectively tackle climate change. But there is a negative consequence of such a simple study that cannot be ignored. Ordinary people do not understand the process of scientific investigation enough to understand such subtleties. Reports like this provide ammunition for meteorologists who claim that all climate scientists are charlatans who are drowning in fear to extend their careers.
“To put it bluntly, the paper is absurd that it should not have passed a competent peer review,” said Zik Ha Ha Sfatter, a climate scientist and analyst of energy systems. “It’s an interesting idea experiment, but its results should be taken with extreme skepticism until more complex Earth system models bring similar results.”
Hussein Schaffer and his colleague Glenn Peters earlier this year urged their fellow scientists to stop publishing the worst case scenarios. “All of us – from physicists and climate influence models to communicators and policy makers – should stop presenting the worst case scenario as a possible situation. Increasing and reducing the likelihood of the effects of extreme climates seems to be as difficult as it really is. This can lead to defeatism, as the problem is considered to be out of control and unreliable. Under pressure, it can lead to poor planning, while a more realistic range of baseline scenarios will strengthen the assessment of environmental hazards. “
Climate models and compasses
Arguing about which climate model Dell is most accurate diverts our attention from the most important point – the earth is warm and can get very hot to support the human population. Then whether it happens in 50 years or in 500 years it is inconsistent. If we had known the effects of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when we started reducing greenhouse gas emissions sixty years ago, we could have easily avoided the crisis we face today. But we did not and now the task is very difficult. How do we proceed from listening? The author here who I hold in high esteem puts it.
“A climate is like a model Dell compass. It is a guide, a tool, but it is not a substitute for the human brain. The more time we spend arguing about whose climate model Dale is more accurate, the sooner we will exist as a species. There is only one solution to the challenge of climate change. Stop burning fossil fuels. Full break. Nothing else matters. And the time to start exploring fossil fuel options is not today, it is tomorrow. We are running against the clock and we are dangerously behind.
“One thing is for sure. He will work together with all humanity to win the war. Unfortunately, the movement to make ‘others’ monsters is gaining popularity in the countries of the world and it is making cooperation less and less. We have the power to take advantage of our collective intelligence, but would we choose to use it when there is still time left? There is no compass or climate model on earth that can answer that question. “Will we succeed in securing our small lifeboat on the far shore of the universe?” We will see, “See the Zen Master.
Appreciate the originality of Clintenica? Consider becoming a member, supporter or ambassador of Clintenica – or Patron of Patron.
Sign up for our daily free daily newsletter or weekly newsletter to never pay a story.
Have any advice for Clintenica, want to advertise, or suggest a guest for our ClinTech Talk Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Latest Cleantech Talk Episode
About the author
Steve Henley writes about the interface between technology and sustainability from his homes in Steve, Florida and Connecticut or anywhere else in his singularity. You can follow him Twitter But not on any social media platform run by evil orals like Facebook.
