How likely is it that the world will successfully manage to stave off (the worst of) global warming?

[Tammuz]

Please read the below two articles:

UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide.”

The alarming new report you may have read about this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which examines just how much better 1.5 degrees of warming would be than 2 — echoes the charge. “Amplifies” may be the better term. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, the report declares, should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure. Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.” The New York Times declared that the report showed a “strong risk” of climate crisis in the coming decades; in Grist, Eric Holthaus wrote that “civilization is at stake.”

If you are alarmed by those sentences, you should be — they are horrifying. But it is, actually, worse than that — considerably worse. That is because the new report’s worst-case scenario is, actually, a best case. In fact, it is a beyond-best-case scenario. What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future. The question is how much worse than that it will get.

The Uninhabitable Earth

It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough.

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

...

The present tense of climate change — the destruction we’ve already baked into our future — is horrifying enough. Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade. Two degrees of warming used to be considered the threshold of catastrophe: tens of millions of climate refugees unleashed upon an unprepared world. Now two degrees is our goal, per the Paris climate accords, and experts give us only slim odds of hitting it

Now please read these two blogposts from Steven Novella's NeuroLogica Blog (You all read it, right? It's excellent.):

Taking A Second Look at Hydrogen

There seems to be increasing awareness (and perhaps weakening denial) that we are standing at a critical moment in the history of our civilization. A problem has been looming for decades and we have largely ignored it. Now the effects are starting to be felt, and scientific confidence has only grown stronger over time.

I am talking, of course, about global climate change. There are still significant stragglers, but there is general consensus in the world that we need to urgently decarbonize our civilization. This is definitely one of the greatest challenges that our generation faces, and many suspect the future will judge us largely by how we meet this challenge.

Many groups have rolled up their sleeves, not to just advocate for one or another potential solution, but to chart viable pathways to a zero carbon infrastructure. The bad news is, it won’t be easy and it will cost trillions of dollars. The good news is, we already have the necessary technology and it will save many more trillions of dollars, not to mention disrupted and shortened lives.

Ecomodernism and Science-Based Environmentalism

Many of the negative impacts we have had on nature are actually past their peaks, especially in developed countries. We are past peak pollution, and peak deforestation. We are actually seeing net reforestation in many areas.

The fact is – we can have it all. We can sustain our current population, even with projected growth (which should stabilize and even decline by the end of the century if trends continue). We can have high quality of life, all the energy we need, and enough food so that no one starves. The answer is science and technology, if we use them wisely.

This means prioritizing sustainability, accounting for all externalized costs, and thinking globally. We are already developing the technology of the future – solar is getting more and more efficient every year, we could have a safe nuclear infrastructure if political barriers were removed, and we may one day develop fusion technology.

Do you notice the differences in outlook between the first two articles and the last two? The last two certainly admits to the problem, it is serious and will require sacrifice and hard work to solve, but still think that we can fix the problem, or at least avert the worst outcomes, and that trends are actually going in the right direction with technological development, reforestation, that we have passed peak pollution, and so on.

The first two articles, by contrast, take a much more grim view on the future of Earth in the 21st century. They think that even if we are successful at hitting set goals of reduced emissions (which we are unlikely to hit anyways), a disastrous future is still our destiny because of all the carbon currently in the atmmosphere.

I would like to know, which perspective is closest to the truth?

 

[TSwizzle]

AGW really has turned into a Rapture like cult.

 

[repoman]

AGW really has turned into a Rapture like cult.

What does 406 ppm carbon mean to you, T?

 

[rousseau]

While global warming is obviously serious, I think it's worth noting that media companies profit from sounding alarmist about it.

I don't think many days ever go by where I don't run into some latest, breaking, alarming you gotta read this and view our ads article about global warming.

 

[Shake]

I think that:

1. things will get worse before large-scale action is taken
2. there are still far too many deniers and folks who are just under-informed to really push this
3. every little bit helps, so anything any one of us can do to help will at least make up for someone else who isn't changing their ways
4. spreading knowledge of how we can all help is powerful

 

[Tammuz]

While global warming is obviously serious, I think it's worth noting that media companies profit from sounding alarmist about it.

I don't think many days ever go by where I don't run into some latest, breaking, alarming you gotta read this and view our ads article about global warming.

Might be something to that. The journalist who wrote the first two articles in the OP thinks that limiting global warming to 2C is a nigh-impossible best-case scenario. However, it seems like the actual scientists involved think that it might still be possible, though with a Herculean effort, to limit global warming to 1.5C. These are significant differences in perspective.

See The Guardian: We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming. The report authors are refusing to accept defeat, believing the increasingly visible damage caused by climate change will shift opinion their way.

“I hope this can change the world,” said Jiang Kejun of China’s semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors. “Two years ago, even I didn’t believe 1.5C was possible but when I look at the options I have confidence it can be done. I want to use this report to do something big in China.”

...

Johan Rockström, a co-author of the recent Hothouse Earth report, said scientists never previously discussed 1.5C, which was initially seen as a political concession to small island states. But he said opinion had shifted in the past few years along with growing evidence of climate instability and the approach of tipping points that might push the world off a course that could be controlled by emissions reductions.

“Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful,” he told the Guardian. “This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous.”

 

[Tammuz]

I think that:

1. things will get worse before large-scale action is taken
2. there are still far too many deniers and folks who are just under-informed to really push this
3. every little bit helps, so anything any one of us can do to help will at least make up for someone else who isn't changing their ways
4. spreading knowledge of how we can all help is powerful

Hopefully now that more severe effects of global warming are starting to be felt even in the developed, northern part of the world (heatwaves, re-occurring hurricanes in Florida, forest fires in California, for example), public opinion will shift and make this a priority.

While I think it is valuable that individuals make efforts in their private lives to help the fight against climate change (eating less red meat and diary products, for example), ultimately the real effort must be made with industry. They are th massive polluters. Hopefully emerging and existing clean technologies will help in this.

 

[steve_bank]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

 

[rousseau]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

I tend to agree with this.

I mean.. this is a turning point in our history and the leader of the free world is spouting nonsense on Twitter. So.. uh, yea.

 

[steve_bank]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

I tend to agree with this.

I mean.. this is a turning point in our history and the leader of the free world is spouting nonsense on Twitter. So.. uh, yea.

Not just trump. Europe is shaky. Ruddier and China are acting like the pre WWII world.

 

[barbos]

We have better chance of climatologists being very wrong than people doing anything even remotely significant to deal with GW. And chances of climatologists being wrong are not very good at all.

 

[rousseau]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

I tend to agree with this.

I mean.. this is a turning point in our history and the leader of the free world is spouting nonsense on Twitter. So.. uh, yea.

Not just trump. Europe is shaky. Ruddier and China are acting like the pre WWII world.

Yea. Our leadership isn't actually leadership. Just people who are good at acquiring power through deceit.

On the bright side this is just reality. There is no God given reason we were supposed to reach utopia and sustainability. We're animals.

The idea that global warming could have been avoided is a bit anthropocentric itself, when you think about it.

 

[Tammuz]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

History tells about the past, not about the future, per definition.

 

[steve_bank]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

History tells about the past, not about the future, per definition.

Who was it that said he who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it?

The EU and NATO were historically epic, overcoming long centuries of European conflict. China is acting like Japan did pre WWII in a broad sense. Ruddier wants the old bloc nations back.

What Trump demonstrates is how fragile it is.

 

[rousseau]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

History tells about the past, not about the future, per definition.

History tells about the past so it can predict and inform the future.

We can't tell the future with certainty, 100% of the time, but we can certainly predict the future sometimes.

 

[DBT]

According to the latest UN report, we are not doing enough to stave off global warming. Perhaps the worst case catastrophic scenarios may be avoided, but not without major problems to deal with.

 

[repoman]

What are the back of the envelope calculations about the CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean and the climatic results from BUA (business as usual) and the amount of time it take for that CO2 to go back down?

I think that a great deal of people who have a modest understanding of the greenhouse effect (after all it is a simple phenomena) have the idea that this added carbon in the atmosphere and ocean can rather quickly be drawn down even on a human time scale. But from my reading it seems like it may be tens of thousands of years before it gets back to something like the preindustrial CO2 levels and climate. And this if the tundra and arctic methane hydrate outgassing is not huge.

Is it better if Joe and Jane Public don't have this maybe worst case, extremely long time period scenario on their minds?

 

[DBT]

I don't think the average person wants to have it on their mind.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think the average person wants to have it on their mind.

That is what TV, Hollywood, music, alcohol, and drugs are for.

I am truly thankful for Monday and Thursday nigh football.

 

[Tammuz]

Given human history to date probably not. History says following a peak in civilization there is collapse and destruction followed by a new evolution in society.

Out with the old and in with the new.

History tells about the past, not about the future, per definition.

History tells about the past so it can predict and inform the future.

We can't tell the future with certainty, 100% of the time, but we can certainly predict the future sometimes.

Yes sure, historical experience can inform present decisions. But studying history is not prophecy.

Another important aspect of history is that it can tell why a specific society looks the way it does. Why do they speak English in New Zealand? Why do Japan and South Korea have somewhat tense relations? What are the historical influences that led to the state ideologies of China and North Korea?

And, though this is just my opinion, history and learning about past societies and civilizations are incredibly interesting in their own rights.