Ken I remain concerned that the risk of ocean anoxia is missing from your video.
Anoxia appears to me to be the most likely 'unsurvivable ' climate change risk. Consequently, it is to my mind perhaps the best example of the central argument for geoengineering - existential threat (particularly if the PT extinction is anything to go by) . Perhaps you could set out why you chose not to include it? Thanks A On Aug 15, 2012 11:53 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > First: There was an error in a title slide of the YouTube video, the > updated video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI > > Regarding Mike MacCracken's mention of sea-level, in the Scientific > American article ( > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-far-can-climate-change-go, > subscription required), I wrote: > > In high-CO2 times in the ancient past, > Earth warmed enough for crocodilelike > animals to live north of the Arctic Circle. > Roughly 100 million years ago annual average > polar temperatures reached 14 degrees > C, with summertime temperatures > exceeding 25 degrees C. Over thousands > of years temperatures of this magnitude > would be sufficient to melt the great ice > sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. With > the ice sheets melted completely, sea level > will be about 120 meters higher, flooding > vast areas. That water’s weight on low- > lying continental regions will push those > areas down farther into the mantle, causing > the waters to lap even higher. > > The poles are expected to warm about > 2.5 times faster than Earth as a whole. Already > the Arctic has warmed faster than > anywhere else, by about two degrees C > compared with 0.8 degree C globally. At > the end of the last ice age, when the climate > warmed by about five degrees C over > thousands of years, the ice sheets melted > at a rate that caused sea level to rise about > one meter per century. We hope and expect > that ice sheets will not melt more rapidly > this time, but we cannot be certain. > > A long-term outlook of 120 m of sea-level rise with a mean rate of 1 m per > century and a risk of more sudden increase seems to me neither too alarmist > nor too sanguine. Some of what I wrote on sea-level got cut out in editing. > > > Regarding 'catastrophe', in the YouTube video ( > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI) I say (somewhat, > inarticulately): > > So then the question comes to us, well, is this going to be a catastrophe > or is this just something we’re going to deal with? And I think we can say > with a pretty high degree of certainty that it’s going to be catastrophic > for at least some ecosystems. I think the clearest is probably coral reefs > are severely challenged by both ocean acidification and global warming. > Arctic ecosystems are probably in big trouble, and it might also be places > like rainforests and so on might also be in big trouble. > > > > Now, what about humans? I think there’s a few things. One is that, > obviously, if you’re a poor subsistence community depending on coral reefs, > you’re probably in trouble. Maybe also if you’re a similar subsistence > society depending on growing food in a place where you’re going to have big > droughts that you’re also going to be in trouble. But it might be that for > the middle classes of the industrialized world that climate change is > really a secondary issue, and that they’ll still have their TV sets and > their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and that life will go on. > > > > That said, we don’t really know that that’s true. If we look at the 2008 > subprime mortgage crisis, there you had perturbations in some financial > markets that led to a 5% loss in GDP throughout the world. And so our > economic system can take some regional perturbation to amplify it into a > global crisis. Also, these days, you have countries where you have nuclear > arm nations, and if they feel they have an existential threat, there’s > potential for war and so on. > > > > So one issue is, since most catastrophic effects of climate change are > likely to show up regionally, in some sort of regional drought or storms or > floods or something else like that, are these social and political systems > going to amplify these regional crises and form a global crisis out of it? > And I think we don’t really know the answers to these questions. We know > that our continued emissions of CO2 is increasing our levels of > environmental risk, but it’s really hard to quantify exactly how much risk > we’re facing. > > Again, I think this is neither overly alarmist nor overly sanguine. > > In the Scientific American piece, I wrote: > > What will thrive in this hothouse? Some > organisms, such as rats and cockroaches, > are invasive generalists, which can take advantage > of disrupted environments. Other > organisms, such as corals and many tropical > forest species, have evolved to thrive in > a narrow range of conditions. Invasive species > will likely transform such ecosystems > as a result of global warming. Climate > change may usher in a world of weeds. > > Human civilization is also at risk. Consider > the Mayans. Even before Europeans > arrived, the Mayan civilization had begun > to collapse thanks to relatively minor climate > changes. The Mayans had not developed > enough resilience to weather small > reductions in rainfall, and the Mayans > are not alone as examples of civilizations > that failed to adapt to climate changes. > Crises provoked by climate change are > likely to be regional. If the rich get richer > and the poor get poorer, could this set in > motion mass migrations that challenge > political and economic stability? Some of > the same countries that are most likely > to suffer from the changes wrought by > global warming also boast nuclear weapons. > Could climate change exacerbate existing > tensions and provoke nuclear or > other apocalyptic conflict? The social response > to climate change could produce > bigger problems for humanity than the > climate change itself. > > I am pretty sure that I did not say exactly the words that were attributed > to me by first translating what I said into German and then back into > English. That said, I do believe that it is entirely possible that for > middle class people in the industrialized world, climate change may end up > being an annoyance and not a central concern. As I say above, it could > also prove catastrophic. I just don't think we know or have a way of > knowing. > > We can act to reduce risk, and that mostly means transforming our systems > of energy production and consumption. > > Also, one person's catastrophe is another person's cost, so some of what > we are talking about is the application of language and not a difference in > understanding of the facts. Health consequences of > black-carbon-particulates are a societal cost of diesel trucking, but if > you are the one with lung cancer, it is a catastrophe. > > Best, > > Ken > > PS. If someone wants a proof-copy of the Scientific American piece for > personal use, you can email me requesting a copy. > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > *Our YouTube videos* > Attribution of atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases to regions: Ken > Caldeira <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRh_Zfr6A08> > Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity: Ken > Caldeira <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo> > More videos<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_Videos.html> > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM, David Lewis <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Caldeira states he was asked by SciAm editors "what would happen if... >> we burned ALL the fossil fuels available and dumped that CO2 into the >> atmosphere", and he claims he took some pains with his answer so it would >> stand up to the scrutiny of his scientific colleagues. At minute 2:00 he >> then states: "it might be that for the middle classes of the industrial >> world that climate change is really a secondary issue and they'll still >> have their TV sets and their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and life would >> go on...." >> >> Matthias Honegger translated an interview Hanna Wick conducted with Ken >> Caldeira that was published in German and posted it for this group >> here<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/tree/browse_frm/thread/51bdd45979ce24a3/a97348bd8422e04e?hide_quotes=no>. >> His translation of what Caldeira said in that interview went a bit further >> than in this SciAm video: Honegger translated Caldeira in this way: "My >> opinion is that climate change will be an ecological disaster. For most >> middle-class people in developed countries* it will not be felt very >> strongly*". >> >> I wonder how these statements are received by Caldeira's scientific >> colleagues. >> >> The time frame for the event, i.e. burning of all the fossil fuels, and >> the consequence, what would happen, appear to be different. Maybe he is >> thinking about the middle classes in 2050, or even by 2100, when many >> consequences will still be "in the pipeline", and in any case it will not >> have been possible to burn all the fossil fuels yet. If Caldeira actually >> believes it is possible to burn ALL the fossil fuels and have the average >> middle class person in developed countries not feel the consequences very >> strongly, how is it that apparently, so many of his colleagues disagree >> with him? >> >> I'd like to know where I've gone wrong in my effort to understand what >> scientists believe. >> >> Consider the publicly expressed views of John Schellnhuber of PIK, who >> stood before the audience at the 4 degrees conference held in Australia and >> after telling them their Great Barrier Reef was doomed even if civilization >> managed what seems now to be the almost impossible goal of limiting global >> warming to 2 degrees C, asked them if very many of them play Russian >> Roulette at home. He then explained that even if civilization limited >> global warming to 2 degrees the odds were worse than 1 in 6 that tipping >> points would be passed anyway which would threaten the existence of >> civilization. >> >> Perhaps Caldeira assumes geoengineering research has reached a point >> where he can assume it will be employed, and the planet can be successfully >> cooled no matter if all the fossil fuels are burned, and that civilization >> can survive relatively unscathed as the biosphere is disrupted wholesale in >> the high CO2 artificially cooled world? >> >> Is Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre, who says there is "a widespread >> view" among top flight scientists he is in contact with that a mere 4 >> degrees C warming will prove to be "incompatible with an organized global >> community" and have a "high probability of not being stable", aware of >> Caldeira's views? >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:22:07 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>> >>> CarnegieGlobEcology just uploaded a video: >>> >>> The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet? Ken >>> Caldeira [Scientific American] >>> Ken Caldeira discussing his article in the August 2012 issue of >>> Scientific American. >>> >>> The article is titled "The Great Climate Experiment. How far can we push >>> the planet?" It extends from page 78 to page 83. >>> >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/**caldeiralab/<http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/> >>> http://www.scientificamerican.**com/sciammag/<http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/>more >>> user by visiting My Subscriptions. >>> >>> © 2012 YouTube, LLC >>> 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WNHPgLBYuz8J. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
