Is it possible to avoid a massive die off?

[emordnilap]

It would be like sawing a bit off the leg of a table to try to level it. We'd end up sawing bits off here and there as we over did it or under did it, until there were no legs left.

Or, for Marx Brothers fans, a little snoop.

BOT, I read one article recently that claimed we're headed for around 4 degrees of warming before 2030. How realistic is this? I'm inclined to think it entirely possible.

[biffvernon]

, if you meant that Cloud Brightening doesn't resolve ocean acidification I'd well agree, but neither will Emissions Control

I don't understand that bit. If we stop emitting CO2 then ocean acidification is not going to get a whole lot worse, beyond the lag in the system. I'd say emission control is a pre-requisite. We also need carbon capture and then, and only then, should we turn serious efforts to the other geo-engineering 'solutions'.

No, I don't think it will happen either.

[RenewableCandy]

The problem with working on the Albedo alone (rather than the atmosphere's composition) is that people will think it's the complete solution and act upon this belief. It's obvious to us that this is bollix, but it's not necessarily obvious to Joe Public and, what's worse, things like Murdoch and the FF industry will go around telling everyone that we're sorted. Making it even less obvious.

This is so predictable that even I can predict it.

And that's before you deal with the possibility that chucking saltwater jets about will have unintended consequences. I mean, it might save this year's harvest somewhere, but, erm, what happens after that?

[Billhook]

, if you meant that Cloud Brightening doesn't resolve ocean acidification I'd well agree, but neither will Emissions Control

I don't understand that bit. If we stop emitting CO2 then ocean acidification is not going to get a whole lot worse, beyond the lag in the system. I'd say emission control is a pre-requisite. We also need carbon capture and then, and only then, should we turn serious efforts to the other geo-engineering 'solutions'.

No, I don't think it will happen either.

Biff and Candy -
EC [Emissions Control] is patently essential and necessary, but it is not sufficient to halt the acceleration of the eight known major feedbacks.
The addition of CR [Carbon Recovery] is equally essential and necessary, but it is not sufficient to do so due to the vast scale of airborne anthro-carbon meaning at best its recovery will take a century of operation - of a new global industry of forest-sourced biochar and co-product methanol, followed by the ~35yr timelag on its temperature effect.

With a best-case of EC achieving near-zero CO2e output by 2050, with the ~35yr timelag we'd see an end to the rise of anthro-warming in the 2080s.
That warming would likely reflect:
0.8C realized warming
0.2C obscured by ENSO since the late '90s
0.7C timelagged in the oceans' thermal inertia pipeline
0.6C (?) from phase-out period output
= ~2.3C
+ 110% (+/-30%) (ref Hansen) due to loss of the cooling sulphate parasol due to the end of our fossil sulphate emissions
= ~4.83C (+/-0.7C) of warming from anthro sources realized in the 2080s.

This outcome would be only slightly mitigated by the addition of a massive global program of CR since there is a lead-time of at least 20 years for required the scale of afforestation, reaching full recovery flow by say 2040 (?) with a net recovery of only 3 or 4 ppm/yr for the 10 yrs to 2050. In cutting part of the warming only from phase-out emissions, this might cut the 4.83C median outcome to perhaps 4.4C to be realized in the 2080s. I.e. it makes no significant difference.

The interactive major feedbacks of concern as carbon emitters are
Microbial Peat Bog Decay
Permafrost Melt
Forest Combustion
Soil Dessication
Methyl Clathrates
Ocean Warming and Acidification (cutting the primary natural carbon sink of oceanic plankton)

With the exception of methyl clathrates whose ongoing destabilization is still disputed by some, all of the above are already accelerating their output of carbon as CO2 &/or as CH4. Most of them have the potential to dwarf present anthropogenic outputs in CO2e terms, but that is to misrepresent their relevance.

With a realized warming of 4.4C in the 2080s under a best case of EC + CR, we would allow the feedbacks around 70yrs of continuous rapidly intensifying warming. Given that the carbon-feedbacks are already accelerating their outputs, and are already interacting directly with other feedbacks, and are already contributing warming to the timelag pipeline to be realized in the late 2040s, it is not their individual ability to dwarf anthro-outputs that matters but their combined impact on warming, and thus on their own further acceleration.

To propose that AR [Albedo Restoration] should be left to a later negotiation after EC + CR are established makes no more sense to me than a proposal of a treaty that phases out all nations' CO2 emissions except the superpowers, whose output would be subject to a future negotiation, until which time they would be allowed to raise their outputs without restraint, meaning that they could together equal and then surpass the present anthro-CO2 output and continue its exponential rise. The effect of such a treaty on airborne CO2 ppmv would be no worse than that from unrestrained carbon feedbacks.

Moreover the argument of AR posing a get-out for backsliders would be no less valid in a later negotiation than in a present comprehensive negotiation. Its adoption could well be delayed for another decade or two for this reason, putting us far beyond the time-window of endurable climate destabilization.

The primary concern should in my view be the climatic destabilization of agriculture, which an increasing flow of sober scientific studies indicate is going to impose intensifying global crop failures starting in the 2020s. Plainly neither EC alone nor EC + CR can do anything at all to address that threat. They are between 70 and 135 years too slow.

Only AR can potentially address that threat, and then only if a very rapid very stringently supervised research effort is able to allow the deployment of AR within the next 10 years at the most. - With a 2 to 3yr lead time to full cooling effect, this would restore global temperature and stabilize global climate by the middle of the 2020s.

I guess we can agree that serial global crop failures would predictably have a massively destabilizing effect on geopolitical relations, relegating nations' adherence to any climate treaty to a mere aspiration "once the emergency is over" ?

In this light a second potentially predictable outcome of delaying the preparation of AR's most benign options is that when global crop failures occur there will be efforts at AR undertaken with the only available option: the long-proven, very cheap, very dirty, very dangerous option of sulphate aerosols, quite probably as unilateral initiatives given the loss of geopolitical stability, which would thereby contribute to a further fracturing of international coherence.

Regarding the sequence of the negotiation of EC+CR+AR, if the argument of "a get-out for backsliders" was valid for AR, then it is worth noting that it is just as valid for CR, if not more so given that scams like REDD+ are already advancing deficient versions of CR as a means of "offsetting" continued fossil emissions. When the political will arises to put the resolution of AGW ahead of its use as a means of advancing/maintaining national dominance, the backsliding tendency will be seen off as a threat to mutual security - until then, it's diplo-business-as-usual.

I hope we might agree that the priority is pursuing whatever route will be swiftest in achieving the operation of EC+CR+AR, and doing so under a stringent verification regime. In this light I'd restate the factor that both CR and AR offer serious 'lubrication' to the negotiation; CR in potentially removing the roadblock of historical emissions, and AR in removing the ground anchors of the N-S stalemate over open-ended climate damages and open-ended compensation liabilities.

The critical point to consider seems to me the fact that attempting to negotiate a treaty of EC+CR, that must try to formulate mutually acceptable commitments over those open ended climate damages - is predictably going to take a hell of a lot longer than one including AR in which those climate damages are seen as being very limited in duration and severity.

For about two decades I understood the resolution of AGW as being about two "Windows of Opportunity" - the first being the period in which it could be resolved by rapid global emissions control alone, which effectively ended with Reagan's coup against President Carter in 1980; and the second being the use of Geo-E in addition to EC, which would end at the point where the feedbacks were too advanced - i.e. were accelerating too fast for Geo-E to be able to control them, which seems unlikely for a couple of decades yet.

But in fact the climatic destabilization of agriculture imposes a third Window of Opportunity which will close at the point where it destabilizes agriculture and thus the international coherence that is prerequisite for international agreements and their effective operation. This window appears to have around 10 to 15 years left before it closes.

For this reason I'd urge the acknowledgement of the inevitable need of both modes of Geo-E alongside emissions control as an urgent priority for a comprehensive negotiation. By this means airborne CO2 could be made to peak somewhat below 450ppmv before starting a steady annual decline, meaning that the acidification of the oceans can be limited to allow the survival of at least half of its present biodiversity. With that, it may well be possible to maintain a terrestrial ecology within which our successors could thrive, albeit in a very different society.

Regards,

Lewis

[biffvernon]

Biff and Candy -
EC [Emissions Control] is patently essential and necessary, but it is not sufficient to halt the acceleration of the eight known major feedbacks.
The addition of CR [Carbon Recovery] is equally essential and necessary, but it is not sufficient to do so due to the vast scale of airborne anthro-carbon meaning at best its recovery will take a century of operation - of a new global industry of forest-sourced biochar and co-product methanol, followed by the ~35yr timelag on its temperature effect.

Agreed.

It's when you add in the kind of geo-engineering that reduces solar warming without reducing CO2 in the air that I think we are on too risky a path.

The greenhouse gasses are the problem and removing them and not adding more is the solution. Other methods allow complacency to creep in.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Water vapour is THE major greenhouse gas.

Of course the effect varies according to altitude and latitude but you knew that already.

[clv101]

Water vapour is THE major greenhouse gas.

Of course the effect varies according to altitude and latitude but you knew that already.

And of course water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing, but you knew that already.

[RenewableCandy]

Ha, we can't even model the climate accurately enough to predict changes, let alone trying to actively modify it! If I understand it correctly, the mainstream models didn't predict such an early reduction in arctic sea ice, for example.

It would be like sawing a bit off the leg of a table to try to level it. We'd end up sawing bits off here and there as we over did it or under did it, until there were no legs left.

And then what would we do?

We would all be legless.

[emordnilap]

Here's an interesting short article from Michael Thomas.

Ecosystems do not react linearly to change, but abruptly switch states.

That the global biosphere or global network of ecosystems, is threatening to collapse, if just 7% more ecosystems shift states (collapse at 50%, and we are currently at 43%).

Managers, planners, and politicians are not coordinating with scientists or experts.

Evolution is far less likely than extinction.

[Tarrel]

Ha, we can't even model the climate accurately enough to predict changes, let alone trying to actively modify it! If I understand it correctly, the mainstream models didn't predict such an early reduction in arctic sea ice, for example.

It would be like sawing a bit off the leg of a table to try to level it. We'd end up sawing bits off here and there as we over did it or under did it, until there were no legs left.

And then what would we do?

We would all be legless.

Well yes, exactly. And we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Seriously though, the idea of messing any more with the atmosphere scares me s**tless. There are so many possible variables, who knows what kind of climate or weather events could be unleashed following attempts at Albedo Reduction. Reversing what we have done through carbon capture is one thing. Trying to compensate for what we've done by further artificial modification is quite another IMO.

[UndercoverElephant]

Trying to compensate for what we've done by further artificial modification is quite another IMO.

I'm in two minds about it.

Climate change is, at least arguably, the single most serious threat to human life on this planet. It's the most serious of all the things we're screwing up, at least from our own perspective. It's also true that it is probably far too late to stop serious climate change from taking hold, via various known and still-unknown positive feedback mechanisms. Take all that into account and it seems like there is a pretty good case for doing anything that might work to stop it.

On the hand, there's two arguments I can see against it. The first is the one you've pointed out: there's so many variables that it is either very difficult or completely impossible to know whether the actual effect will be what we intended, or whether something else will happen (or even both). The second is that while climate change is probably the single most serious threat, there are so many other serious threats, all of them with the same root causes of overpopulation, overconsumption, excessive pollution, resources depletion and, ultimately, the abject inability of human beings to organise themselves into larger-than-tribe-sized units in an ecologically-responsible manner, that it actually seems futile to attack the problem of climate change by trying to tinker with the climate directly. It's like trying to find a quick cure for cancer while refusing to consider giving up the smoking that caused it in the first place.

Nature is going to take its course, and it will be messy.

We can't avoid the die-off, and we all know it. Apart from Biff, of course.

[vtsnowedin]

Trying to compensate for what we've done by further artificial modification is quite another IMO.

I'm in two minds about it.

Climate change is, at least arguably, the single most serious threat to human life on this planet.

I would argue that human overpopulation is far more serious and is the root cause of both climate change and species extinctions etc. . I expect that to correct itself shortly in a very harsh way and these other problems it has caused will fade away for the much reduced human population.

[RenewableCandy]

It's like trying to find a quick cure for cancer while refusing to consider giving up the smoking that caused it in the first place.

Early one morning at Leeds station I was not-so-privileged to share Platform 10 with a lady sporting one of those pink ribbons ("Breast cancer awareness"). Who then lit up.

[emordnilap]

It's like trying to find a quick cure for cancer while refusing to consider giving up the smoking that caused it in the first place.

Early one morning at Leeds station I was not-so-privileged to share Platform 10 with a lady sporting one of those pink ribbons ("Breast cancer awareness"). Who then lit up.

Does smoking cause breast cancer?

[RenewableCandy]

Standing on Platform 10 at Leeds station doesn't do one any good either. I've given it up since then.