Study: future climate warming may be avoidable (WARNING: OPTIMISTIC CONTENT)

[wtmusic]

A new study suggests that humans might actually be able to limit the amount of climatic warming, dooming pessimists/survivalists to a future of accepting responsibility for their environmental impact.

"There is widespread confusion about the near-term benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that misunderstanding may be complicating the formidable task of reducing manmade global warming, argue two climate researchers in Science in a story published Thursday.

The scientists, Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal and Susan Solomon of MIT, make the case that policymakers, the media, and to some extent the public have misunderstood the implications of two key concepts — the “irreversibility” of climate change, and the amount of global warming already in the pipeline due to historical greenhouse gas emissions. The duo challenge what they say have become pervasive misinterpretations of recent scientific results, including findings from a 2010 National Research Council report they helped write that said that the amount of global warming to date is essentially irreversible on the timescale of about 1,000 years. That study has been repeatedly cited by policymakers to justify delays in tackling carbon emissions by making global warming appear to be inexorable, regardless of what actions are taken.

But Matthews and Solomon rebut that justification, writing instead that, 'the irreversibility of past changes does not mean that future warming is unavoidable.'"

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/two-key-climate-change-concepts-are-misunderstood-say-scientists-15792

[Exen Trik]

1. And not one mention of methane

I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously if they don't address that little problem. It may well be that the global warming from carbon dioxide is reversible by some kind of means, but the melting of permafrost and the methane releases are exponentially more consequential. We'd have to start cooling off now to prevent that runaway warming. And there is no chance of that, even stopping all emissions immediately would not do that.

Some sort of extreme atmospheric alteration would be needed to reverse course. But something like that isn't going to be on the radar until we flip from denial to panic. Which is inevitable at some point.

[pscot]

2. The flip from denial to panic

is probably not that far off. The general public is totally unprepared for what's coming. When they finally figure it out, the response will ilkely be hysteria.

[wtmusic]

4. It won't happen fast enough to induce panic.

There will be an endless stream of "new normals", and slightly more than a goldfish-attention timespan to get used to them.

[pscot]

6. It depends

If the changes are sufficiently gradual you may be right. But if some large event captures the attention of press and public, I believ that panic could take over very quickly. Just as there's nothing rational about the current state of denial, the public response when they waken will be equally irrational and highly dramatic.

[stuntcat]

7. oh that's what I'm so scared of

I wish everyone would suddenly WAKE UP but I really am afraid that even in 2020 or 2030 people will still be going happily along, thinking the future's so bright.

It killed me the last few days seeing people blame the late March snow on that awful Al Gore, who seems to represent the entire planet to so many people.
This winter was very mild here, a couple of annual flowers that weren't supposed to survive it are growing new green leaves now, and the quick little icy snow they made SUCH a deal about the other day didn't do anything to kill it
People are so dense it's just sad.

[wtmusic]

3. Even slowing the rate of change would be progress.

How do you know they don't address methane?

[Exen Trik]

5. There is no mention of it in the article, only carbon

It's not impossible that it is covered in the actual report, but it really doesn't sound like it. I'd like to be wrong, and for them to be right. I guess the basic idea is still valid, regardless: there is hope if things are done. But the scope of the problem must accept methane as the bigger problem when triggered, which it pretty much already is. The paper and the article really should be directly addressing that.

[NickB79]

8. That was good for a chuckle

They pretty much went off the rails with this line:

“There will be future warming, but it’s because of human actions. It’s not because of the climate system itself,” Matthews said. “Future emissions are what’s driving future warming.”

Yeah, when the Arctic ice sheet collapses in the next few years and all those wonderful positive feedback loops because of it's loss really start to kick in, I think we'll be reconsidering that line.

That's the real danger of passing tipping points (like we have already in the Arctic): they become self-perpetuating cycles that we have little control over.

And then there's this line:

For example, “freezing” the amount of greenhouse gases in the air at current levels — about 397 parts per million — would require massive emissions cuts from present emissions trajectories, but the emissions that would continue would still contribute to global warming, Matthews said.

In other words, freezing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at a particular level, such as 350 parts per million, — the target of the environmental advocacy group 350.org — is not the same thing as eliminating all emissions.

In reality, neither scenario is likely anytime soon. Given recent global emissions trends, with rapidly increasing emissions from developing countries like China and India and a lack of sharp emissions cuts from the industrialized world, a freeze in atmospheric carbon concentrations is nowhere in sight, let alone a shutdown of all emissions, and a massive global effort would be needed to reverse course.

[joshcryer]

9. Indeed, in fantasy scenarios, anything can happen.

But I do think we'll resort to geoengineering, after the new normal is too extreme for us to accept.