James Hansen, the country’s most prescient climatologist, is out with another must-read paper, “Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide.” The paper, co-authored by a number of Hansen’s former colleagues at NASA, is an antidote to the rosy scenarios the mainstream media have recently been pushing.

The key findings are

• The Earth’s actual sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels from preindustrial levels (to 550 ppm) — including slow feedbacks — is likely to be larger than 3–4°C (5.4-7.2°F).
• Given that we are headed towards a tripling (820 ppm) or quadrupling (1100 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 levels, inaction is untenable.
• “Burning all fossil fuels” would warm land areas on average about 20°C (36°F) and warm the poles a stunning 30°C (54°F). This “would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.”

Burning all or even most fossil fuels would be a true scorched Earth policy.

Given that James Hansen has been right about global warming for more than 3 decades, his climate warnings need to be taken seriously.

The article makes two crucial point that so many media reports on climate sensitivity ignore. First, we are headed well past a doubling of CO2 levels. Second, “slow feedbacks, especially change of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered.” We know from recent research that two CO2 feedbacks alone — thawing permafrost and ocean acidification — have been projected to increase total global warming by 2100 as much as 2°F!

If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face catastrophic levels of warming. Indeed, if we ultimately burn all of fossil fuels, Hansen et al find almost unimaginable consequences:

Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer.

More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans. The human body generates about 100 W of metabolic heat that must be carried away to maintain a core body temperature near 37°C, which implies that sustained wet bulb temperatures above 35°C can result in lethal hyperthermia. Today, the summer temperature varies widely over the Earth’s surface, but wet bulb temperature is more narrowly confined by the effect of humidity, with the most common value of approximately 26–27°C and the highest approximately of 31°C. A warming of 10–12°C would put most of today’s world population in regions with wet a bulb temperature above 35°C…. Note also that increased heat stress due to warming of the past few decades is already enough to affect health and workplace productivity at low latitudes, where the impact falls most heavily on low- and middle-income countries

Climate Progress has previously written on the literature projecting a collapse in labor productivity from business as usual global warming. But the scorched Earth would have a vastly smaller carrying capacity than our current one, and avoiding mass starvation would become the primary task of humanity.

Hansen et al. note that this may not even require burning all of fossil fuels. It could happen on our current emissions path — if the slower (decadal) feedbacks are as strong as some paleoclimate analysis suggests. Back in 2011 we reported on a paleoclimate paper in Science that found we are headed towards CO2 levels in 2100 last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter.

In that sense, Hansen et al. is a conservative analysis. Their whole paper is worth reading. The authors conclude:

Most of the remaining fossil fuel carbon is in coal and unconventional oil and gas. Thus, it seems, humanity stands at a fork in the road. As conventional oil and gas are depleted, will we move to carbon-free energy and efficiency—or to unconventional fossil fuels and coal? If fossil fuels were made to pay their costs to society, costs of pollution and climate change, carbon-free alternatives might supplant fossil fuels over a period of decades. However, if governments force the public to bear the external costs and even subsidize fossil fuels, carbon emissions are likely to continue to grow, with deleterious consequences for young people and future generations.

It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity.

Scorched Earth image via durn.newgrounds.com

• Share 384
• 5
• inShare6
• Email

• By Alex Kirby for Climate News Network, part of the Guardian Environment Network
• theguardian.com, Tuesday 17 September 2013 01.25 AEST

Scientists say that if humans continue with business as usual, using fossil fuels and pumping out excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, the world will be on track for a planet that is 4C warmer by the end of this century Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters

With the IPCC report not yet published, there is already heated debate about what it will say, and about the implications of its findings for human development.

The scientists’ statement is unequivocal, and is not based on whatever the IPCC may publish. They say: “The body of evidence indicating that our civilisation has already caused significant global warming is overwhelming.”

The statement comes from 12 members of the recently established Earth League, which describes itself as “a voluntary alliance of leading scientists and institutions dealing with planetary processes and sustainability issues”.

They say that if humans continue with business as usual, using fossil fuels and pumping out excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, the world will be on track for a planet that is 4C warmer by the end of this century, or even earlier.

The group says assertions that there has been no warming this century are simply wrong. “Regardless of the… (erroneous) claim that global warming has already stopped, evidence is that once well-known impacts from El Niño, volcanic aerosols and solar variability are removed from the observations, the warming trend of the ocean-atmosphere system is unbroken; and that it will continue (potentially towards 4°C) unless serious mitigation action is taken.

“That global warming continues unabated over the last decade is confirmed by ocean measurements. Ninety per cent of the additional heat that the Earth system absorbs due to the increase in greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans, and the global array of thousands of scientific measurement robots in the oceans proves that they keep heating up at a steady pace. Meanwhile satellites show that sea levels also keep rising steadily.”

The statement says a 4°C rise would drastically change the Earth. Some coastlines and entire islands would be submerged by rising sea levels, and more extreme heat waves would cause crop failures and loss of life.

It says powerful feedback processes that would very probably raise the warming even higher could be triggered, and might prove irreversible: “Four degrees of planetary warming means some 8°C change close to the Arctic, which will cause even larger impacts on the Eurasian and North American land mass and the surrounding seas.”

“…our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations.”

Already, it says, there is persuasive evidence that immense changes may be under way: “The last two decades were… punctuated by devastating floods (like the Pakistan deluge in 2010) that may be related to an incipient restructuring of the atmospheric circulation.

“The signs on the climate wall as expressed by the accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice and by the retreat of the overwhelming majority of glaciers worldwide are there for all to see. Yet this is just the beginning.”

The scientists say: “Although climate science only tells us what might happen and not what to do about it, we feel that inaction is an unacceptable prospect.

“Nations go to war, implement mass vaccinations of their populations and organise expensive insurance and security systems (such as anti-terror measures) to address much fainter threats. However, our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations.”

The 12 signatories recognise that some people believe it is impossible for human activities to produce a 4°C temperature rise. Others, they say, are already acknowledging defeat by maintaining that the international policy goal of limiting warming to less than 2°C is a lost case.

They write that there is “ample evidence” that the world can hold a 2°C line, and say technology shows that global sustainability is attainable. But they add: “… the evidence demonstrates that the time frame to achieve this is rapidly shrinking.”

The signatories of the statement include Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London. The link above lists all 12 signatories.

Doctors can’t tell me exactly how long my husband has to live. Our oncologist said it could be as little as two weeks however our neurosurgeon said, given he is fit and strong, it could be 3 to 6 months.

Nick has exhausted all the commercially available treatment options for Stage 4 melanoma and is just not qualifying for the new ‘breakthrough’ PD-1 drug trials – he needs access to PD-1 urgently, however the pharmaceutical companies, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck, each of whom make a version of PD-1 have not, to date, agreed to grant Nick access to the drug on a compassionate basis. They insist that he should enter a trial but they know that he does not qualify for any trials.

I can’t imagine life without Nick. I can’t imagine telling our son Locky he has to watch the big game alone, telling Hayley that Daddy can’t take her bike-riding anymore, or knowing that my youngest son won’t even remember his dad.

This treatment is our family’s last hope. That’s why we started a petition on change.org asking Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck to give Nick compassionate access to the PD-1 cancer drug. Please click here to sign our petition.

Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb have the power to grant Nick single patient access to PD-1 right away under compassionate use laws. They even have policies for providing development drugs to people where it is their only hope. PD-1 is being trialled right now and they’ve given patients compassionate access to drugs like this before so I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t this time – but so far they’re refusing to hear our case.

Nick is determined to beat this so our children — Locky (7), Hayley (5), and Evan (1) — can grow up with Dad beside them. Nick takes on each new battle with melanoma with audacity — determined to win and constantly assuring others that he will jump the next hurdle. And he always does.

Nick can jump this last hurdle, I know it — but only if Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb give him that chance.

Please join Locky, Hayley, Evan, and me in asking Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb to provide the cancer drug PD-1 to Nick, so he can win against melanoma.

Thank you so much for your help,

Amy Auden

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen slams Coalition for dumping science portfolio

Date

September 17, 2013 – 12:31PM

• 24 reading now

Daniel Hurst

Federal political reporter

View more articles from Daniel Hurst

Follow Daniel on Twitter Follow Daniel on Google+ Email Daniel

• Pin It
• submit to reddit
• Email article
• Print
• Reprints & permissions

No science minister ‘disconcerting’

Nobel prize winning astrophysicist Brian Schmidt says it will take six to eight weeks to determine how committed the Abbott government is to science.

• Autoplay OnOff
• Video feedback
• Video settings

• Federal politics coverage

A vocal climate sceptic who wanted to be science minister has hit out at Tony Abbott’s decision not to appoint a dedicated minister to the area.

Western Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen’s criticism came as the country’s peak science bodies expressed concern over Mr Abbott’s new ministry, which has omitted a dedicated science minister for the first time in more than 50 years.

Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen is critical of the Abbott government’s decision to omit a science minister.

Dr Jensen, who had publicly put himself forward as a potential science minister, said on Tuesday the omission of a specific portfolio was incoherent.

Advertisement

“I’m somewhat confused about what happened to the science portfolio,” he told ABC News 24.

The backbencher, who has a master’s degree in physics and a PhD in material science and is outspoken in his doubts about mainstream science on climate change, said splitting responsibility for science between the industry and education ministries would “make it a somewhat schizophrenic policy area”.

Ian MacFarlane Photo: Max Mason-Hubers

“We’ve got a minister for sport, for God’s sake, but we don’t have a minister for science,” he said.

“I guess this is a problem with not having people of scientific bent in decision-making processes.”

Dr Jensen cited problems with the Australian Research Council’s process of awarding grants and a lack of quality students entering the field at university.

“Science is in crisis, quite frankly,” he said.

Dr Jensen made the comments in an interview in which he repeated criticisms that Mr Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme was too expensive and had not been properly thought through.

He said the scheme should be referred to the Productivity Commission for examination.

Asked whether he could see himself voting for the scheme, Dr Jensen said he would ‘‘have to wait and see where the policy goes’’ but he currently had problems with it.

The country’s peak science bodies have expressed concern over Tony Abbott’s new ministry, which has omitted a dedicated science minister for the first time in more than 50 years.

Not since 1931 has an Australian government been without a science minister.

Universities Australia said it would work with the Abbott government to ensure it did not neglect “the critical areas of science, research and innovation”.

Under the incoming Abbott government, the minister for industry, Ian MacFarlane, will be responsible for some areas of science, including The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Mr Abbott said on Monday science would “largely be in the industry portfolio”.

“I am trying to avoid a situation where unless something is specifically mentioned in someone’s title it is unimportant,” Mr Abbott said.

“Everything that is significant is obviously of concern to an Australian government but it is possible to take things very, very seriously indeed without feeling they need to be included in people’s titles because we are just getting to a situation of title inflation and frankly I want to avoid title inflation.

“Thankfully I think we’ve got some title deflation as a result of this ministry.”

The Australian Academy of Science said it was disappointed.

”A scientifically literate society is a society which is equipped to hold informed debate and make intelligent decisions about big issues that affect us all,” the Academy’s secretary for science policy, Les Field, said.

The head of Science and Technology Australia, Catriona Jackson, said the nation’s scientists were confused by the absence of a science minister.

”Science and technology are central to virtually everything government does, from industry to universities, to agriculture to health, to creating the kind of jobs that will ensure a prosperous future,” she said.

But leading scientists including Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Schmidt, and immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal, were reluctant to judge the new ministry until further details were released.

Professor Schmidt said as long as the minister in charge of science had passion and influence.

Sir Gustav said he was not too concerned, but would like the new government to continue to support the major science organisations, including the CSIRO, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

with Nicky Phillips, Bridie Smith

 

 

Recommended

[?]

8 Miley Cyrus memes to cleanse the palate

Demi Moore is reportedly dating her ex’s father

Bandt facing defeat in prized seat, poll finds

Sad loss for Jack and Lisa

From the web

Australia-China trade no longer just a resource story

Financial Review