Climate change is Now Self-amplifying

Climate change is now self-amplifying. Humanity can avoid speeding up the rate of climate change. Humanity can halt atmospheric temperature rise and its consequences, but not by reducing its emissions to zero in the next several years, even if that were feasible. All that would do is slow the rate of change down some. As is, the Earth’s surface will become uninhabitable eventually. The question to ask is “How quickly?”

In workshops I have watched in the last couple years, climate scientists routinely state their belief that we will reach 2-2.5C degrees of average global atmospheric warming before we reach “net zero” carbon emissions in 2050. They also seem to think that we have started positive feedback loops of atmospheric temperature increase by heating the rain forests, the open ocean, the poles, forested areas, and permafrost. Some also think that those feedback loops are locked into the climate system. If so, those feedback loops can push temperature increase past 2.5C. I think they can work on their own from our current 1.2C of warming.

The choice of “tipping point” to describe the problem areas of the globe was a bad one. Once their amplifying changes start, some tipping points are reversible (like loss of rain forest to burning or plankton to pollutants) while most are not (like permafrost melt) over human timescales. The existence of a tipping point implies a sudden tipping over, but tipping point processes are fairly gradual in human terms, and their rate can accelerate or decelerate.

There is some consensus forming that the Arctic tipping point is past, but explaining what that means is confusing. We can expect ice-free summers in the Arctic in the coming decades. The ice losses amplify other processes like permafrost GHG release. The processes speed up atmospheric temperature increase. But I don’t know if we can reverse the ice loss. There are some discussions out there about protecting the Arctic ice with geoengineering, but no studies of the feasibility of that possibility, and time is short.

Scientists recently discovered a new tipping point connected to a loss of cloud cover past a certain degree of warming. An estimate of temperature increase forced by that loss of cloud cover is an additional 8C. That tipping point is estimated to happen at about 6C of warming (I think). That estimate of the warming level that forces the cloud loss might be too high.

A couple years ago climate scientists began saying that real data had invalidated their climate models. Actual measurements show indicators (like Greenland ice melt) higher than models predicted and accelerating in their increase.

Scientists have revised model estimates for tipping points from higher levels of warming down to lower levels in the last decade. Every tipping point locks in some temperature increase. Some amount of temperature increase forces other tipping points. The tipping points can continue the temperature increase themselves (for example, melting permafrost can put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere itself, and the permafrost is already melting in today’s climate). Tipping points also have other consequences (for example, melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet ruining farmland and drowning coastal cities) but my point is that acceleration of their processes occurs due to other processes (for example, Arctic ice melt can help indirectly release GHG’s that contribute to droughts and forest losses which removes a carbon sink, increasing net GHG’s in the atmosphere). Tipping points now begin to fall at only 1.1C, when in the past they were believed to occur only with more atmospheric warming.

Lines of evidence like I listed here lead me to think that we no longer have to force the atmospheric system for it to continue to warm indefinitely. However, we are continuing to force the system anyway, increasing the rate and acceleration of warming.

If I understand correctly, IPCC models used to calculate carbon budgets did not incorporate rate of change in global temperature forced by tipping point mechanisms (for example, permafrost as an an increasing carbon source). Instead, the IPCC used steady state models that ignored tipping point acceleration and extent and instead gave risk estimates of when some tipping points could be reached (whatever that means) in terms of atmospheric temperature increases forced by anthropogenic GHG’s. The risk estimates served as signposts of what to avoid, and general consensus was to avoid warming past 1.5C.

Climate scientists have to answer:

“Are present conditions sufficient to force all tipping points to reach their final stage or is anthropogenic forcing necessary?”

They are hesitating, so it’s an open question for a while longer for most people. Once the question is answered, climate scientists have to look at the rate at which tipping points force climate changes and provide strong models with real estimates. Those models can help humanity grapple with geoengineering questions about how to successfully cool the planet.

If you are wondering, countries that pollute (or are responsible for pollution elsewhere) have committed to reach “net-zero” by 2050, but the promises are worthless and the plans are corrupted by special interests. Actual carbon production continues to follow exponential growth. Nowhere in negotiated plans do countries commit to reducing their emissions to zero. Instead, emitters promise a balance of greenhouse gas production and removal that is not timely or feasible at scale with current technology (DACS, BECSS, reforestation, etc). The international government agreement to reach net-zero by 2050 is an obvious and stupid failure that is visible 28 years in advance.

There are no feasible plans seriously and widely considered from any source to prevent destruction of human civilization due to climate change within the century.

Technology can address the problem of climate change. We just don’t have the technology yet. I think the solutions would start with nanotechnology similar to what Eric Drexler predicted in the 1980′s.

Humanity suffers the harm of ecosystem losses or biosphere destruction as well. Humanity causes damage to the biosphere in multiple ways, not just through climate change. Humanity has to heal the biosphere and reverse climate change in order to survive on Earth.