16 thoughts on “PBS: Why 2 Degrees is Climate’s Magic Number”
Excellent piece. It couldn’t be any clearer to me that we are kidding ourselves about whether or not we really understand climate change and whether or not we can combat it effectively. Is 2 degrees a reasonable target? Is there already way more than 2 degrees of warning built in because of lag time in the earth’s climate system? Do our predictive models take into account all factors? Does anyone really want to face the implications of the “carbon budget”? Can we really hope to deal with something that has only come to light in the last 50 or so years when man’s history shows so many failures?
Hubris and anthropocentrism have driven us to a position where we think we understand and think we have answers. I love Richard Alley, but in his comments here he personifies the willful ignorance and need to NOT tell the inconvenient truths that we see in so many scientists.
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”, he says? That’s perhaps true if one is walking across a “flat” and open terrain and can scope out the path ahead. The situation is far different if one is in a thick jungle with hidden terrain that is masked from view. The traveler there may one day find himself looking up at an insurmountable cliff wall in front of him, or worse, step off a high precipice and end his journey instantly and permanently. Alley does us a disservice by implying that the “1000 mile journey” can in fact be completed with our present state of knowledge and under the present exploitative economic system.
McPherson has it right with “Nature bats last”, and the human “team” doesn’t understand the rules of the game. Too bad.
Just a casual observation from an outsider peeking in on the negotiations and speculating on the mindset of the players involved. It’s what it ‘feels like’ thus far.
NOT an excellent piece. Even with the pledges, we’re set to blow past +2C to +3.6C (and then up from there) http://climateactiontracker.org/
And even the climate modelling incorporated there has nothing on the permafrost carbon feedback or just how much carbon will have to be spewed just to transform the world’s energy system. And nothing on the +0.58watts/m2 forcing we’re living in now even if we drop CO2 emissions by fully 70% and thereby stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. No mention of the sea level rise of +10ft on up, from West Antarctica alone, let alone darkening Greenland, etc. No mention of the fact that even at ZERO emissions (which is impossible short of the End) global temperatures will not go back down, and merely the <+1C we've had over the past century has been enough to destroy the Arctic Ocean ice, with the resulting wave of warmth which will (Vaks et al) melt all of the permafrost in the coming 2 centuries, releasing much of its carbon (including methane), about which we can do nothing. No mention of how IPCC publications climate models have not included the non-linear effects of ice sheet collapse which we've been learning over the past few years. Instead, I see waffling, false balance, and the usual timidity to just TELL the TRUTH.
If this was a piece from ABC or NBC, I'd shake my head and hope the viewer would strongly consider how watered down it all might be. But its PBS… It's such a tragedy that corporations have bought so much of even the once-venerable institutions of knowledge and communication, and spread the conspiracy of climate silence into those realms. Has anyone ever seen a show on PBS Nova on human-caused climate change? Think David H. Koch's major funding has something to do with that? What about Rupert Murdoch buying National Geographic and terminating the fact-checkers. It's all pablum and bread and circuses while the economic elites finish plundering whatever is left from us and this Earth.
It is an excellent broadcast and effectively highlights man’s dramatic effect on our climate, including some excellent narratives from experts. Much, much better than other some lame efforts I’ve seen by such media outlets as the B.B.C’s truly pathetic clip (attached). . . .
If Professor Richard B. Alley can remain upbeat (and he truly has a great sense and perspective on deep time), then I can to. Thanks for sharing Peter.
Tim & B.B.C this does not cut it at all . . . take note from P.B.S
I confronted R. Alley on the fact that global temperatures will not go back down even with zero emissions, when he spoke at a climate conference at UC Santa Cruz in March this year (this fact is not controversial, but it’s NEVER mentioned in the press or by policy people). It was a good opportunity to see his communication bent… he didn’t challenge or contradict this fact, but instead sidestepped entirely and talked about taking positive steps. Well fine – but you’re NOT going to motivate people properly by gentle nudges and coo-coo’ing about being “on the path” etc etc. When you’re heading for a cliff, it’s not productive to cheer about a slight nudge off the gas pedal when what is needed INSTANTLY is a full slam-on-brakes and yank of the steering wheel. Otherwise, you’re just in the backseat giving atta boy’s on the shoulder about giving it a good try, sailing down down down and waiting for impact.
It’ll go back down on the 100,000 year time scale via chemical weathering. In the mean time there will probably be some big volcanoes and some nuclear wars to give us moments of relief.
Darn – I typed up a response last night and added to it today, but when I hit the ‘post comment’ button, WordPress said it couldn’t post the message. Okay I’ll try again later after I get some work done…
Oscar Wilde once said “Work is the curse of the drinking class”. He could have said “thinking class” also, because work gets definitely gets in the way of us devoting adequate time to solving the world’s problems.
Loading...
On this topic a very well constructed narrative in today’s Guardian that spells out the likely consequences of temperature anomaly rises, a very good approach to informing people of just why we need to end our love affair with oil and coal. I just wonder how many undecided people will find time and bother to read it though . . . . .
“Without action, climate scientists have warned that temperatures could rise by nearly 5C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. World leaders meeting in Paris hope to keep average global surface temperature rises below 2C – but their pledges to cut emissions could still see up to 3C according to analyses. While it is very hard to make firm predictions, here are some of the potential impacts. All are for possible temperature rises occurring by 2100.”
As someone who has decided to devote many hours of the day trawling through media, this, in my opinion, is the best commentary of the meaning of the two degrees limit, from the religious, climate educated Katharine Hayhoe . . . . best analogy I’ve heard, how many cigarettes can you smoke before you risk lung cancer ?
These are far out of date projections from the IPCC; We’ve already lost half of the Arctic’s summer sea ice, and that’s not even with +1C of temperature. The 82cm of sea level rise for +4C only includes thermal expansion of water, not continental ice melt. West Antarctica alone will contribute 10ft over the coming centuries, as of data from 2014. One could go on and one. A large part of the inertia and complacency must be blamed squarely on the media. True science reporting is rare these days.
Excellent piece. It couldn’t be any clearer to me that we are kidding ourselves about whether or not we really understand climate change and whether or not we can combat it effectively. Is 2 degrees a reasonable target? Is there already way more than 2 degrees of warning built in because of lag time in the earth’s climate system? Do our predictive models take into account all factors? Does anyone really want to face the implications of the “carbon budget”? Can we really hope to deal with something that has only come to light in the last 50 or so years when man’s history shows so many failures?
Hubris and anthropocentrism have driven us to a position where we think we understand and think we have answers. I love Richard Alley, but in his comments here he personifies the willful ignorance and need to NOT tell the inconvenient truths that we see in so many scientists.
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”, he says? That’s perhaps true if one is walking across a “flat” and open terrain and can scope out the path ahead. The situation is far different if one is in a thick jungle with hidden terrain that is masked from view. The traveler there may one day find himself looking up at an insurmountable cliff wall in front of him, or worse, step off a high precipice and end his journey instantly and permanently. Alley does us a disservice by implying that the “1000 mile journey” can in fact be completed with our present state of knowledge and under the present exploitative economic system.
McPherson has it right with “Nature bats last”, and the human “team” doesn’t understand the rules of the game. Too bad.
The real target is 3 to 4C. We just have to aim for the 2C to hit it.
Not funny. Or were you aiming for irony?
Just a casual observation from an outsider peeking in on the negotiations and speculating on the mindset of the players involved. It’s what it ‘feels like’ thus far.
NOT an excellent piece. Even with the pledges, we’re set to blow past +2C to +3.6C (and then up from there) http://climateactiontracker.org/
And even the climate modelling incorporated there has nothing on the permafrost carbon feedback or just how much carbon will have to be spewed just to transform the world’s energy system. And nothing on the +0.58watts/m2 forcing we’re living in now even if we drop CO2 emissions by fully 70% and thereby stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. No mention of the sea level rise of +10ft on up, from West Antarctica alone, let alone darkening Greenland, etc. No mention of the fact that even at ZERO emissions (which is impossible short of the End) global temperatures will not go back down, and merely the <+1C we've had over the past century has been enough to destroy the Arctic Ocean ice, with the resulting wave of warmth which will (Vaks et al) melt all of the permafrost in the coming 2 centuries, releasing much of its carbon (including methane), about which we can do nothing. No mention of how IPCC publications climate models have not included the non-linear effects of ice sheet collapse which we've been learning over the past few years. Instead, I see waffling, false balance, and the usual timidity to just TELL the TRUTH.
If this was a piece from ABC or NBC, I'd shake my head and hope the viewer would strongly consider how watered down it all might be. But its PBS… It's such a tragedy that corporations have bought so much of even the once-venerable institutions of knowledge and communication, and spread the conspiracy of climate silence into those realms. Has anyone ever seen a show on PBS Nova on human-caused climate change? Think David H. Koch's major funding has something to do with that? What about Rupert Murdoch buying National Geographic and terminating the fact-checkers. It's all pablum and bread and circuses while the economic elites finish plundering whatever is left from us and this Earth.
+2C Magic Number indeed.
It is an excellent broadcast and effectively highlights man’s dramatic effect on our climate, including some excellent narratives from experts. Much, much better than other some lame efforts I’ve seen by such media outlets as the B.B.C’s truly pathetic clip (attached). . . .
If Professor Richard B. Alley can remain upbeat (and he truly has a great sense and perspective on deep time), then I can to. Thanks for sharing Peter.
Tim & B.B.C this does not cut it at all . . . take note from P.B.S
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34920941
I confronted R. Alley on the fact that global temperatures will not go back down even with zero emissions, when he spoke at a climate conference at UC Santa Cruz in March this year (this fact is not controversial, but it’s NEVER mentioned in the press or by policy people). It was a good opportunity to see his communication bent… he didn’t challenge or contradict this fact, but instead sidestepped entirely and talked about taking positive steps. Well fine – but you’re NOT going to motivate people properly by gentle nudges and coo-coo’ing about being “on the path” etc etc. When you’re heading for a cliff, it’s not productive to cheer about a slight nudge off the gas pedal when what is needed INSTANTLY is a full slam-on-brakes and yank of the steering wheel. Otherwise, you’re just in the backseat giving atta boy’s on the shoulder about giving it a good try, sailing down down down and waiting for impact.
It’ll go back down on the 100,000 year time scale via chemical weathering. In the mean time there will probably be some big volcanoes and some nuclear wars to give us moments of relief.
Moments of relief? Is that some of that “dark humor” that one of the moron trolls was lecturing us about?
Darn – I typed up a response last night and added to it today, but when I hit the ‘post comment’ button, WordPress said it couldn’t post the message. Okay I’ll try again later after I get some work done…
Oscar Wilde once said “Work is the curse of the drinking class”. He could have said “thinking class” also, because work gets definitely gets in the way of us devoting adequate time to solving the world’s problems.
On this topic a very well constructed narrative in today’s Guardian that spells out the likely consequences of temperature anomaly rises, a very good approach to informing people of just why we need to end our love affair with oil and coal. I just wonder how many undecided people will find time and bother to read it though . . . . .
“Without action, climate scientists have warned that temperatures could rise by nearly 5C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. World leaders meeting in Paris hope to keep average global surface temperature rises below 2C – but their pledges to cut emissions could still see up to 3C according to analyses. While it is very hard to make firm predictions, here are some of the potential impacts. All are for possible temperature rises occurring by 2100.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/04/paris-climate-talks-what-difference-will-temperature-rises-really-make
Katharine Hayhoe explains the magic number well in this podcast featured in Climate Change News
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/03/podcast-a-climate-scientists-first-un-summit/
As someone who has decided to devote many hours of the day trawling through media, this, in my opinion, is the best commentary of the meaning of the two degrees limit, from the religious, climate educated Katharine Hayhoe . . . . best analogy I’ve heard, how many cigarettes can you smoke before you risk lung cancer ?
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/03/podcast-a-climate-scientists-first-un-summit/
These are far out of date projections from the IPCC; We’ve already lost half of the Arctic’s summer sea ice, and that’s not even with +1C of temperature. The 82cm of sea level rise for +4C only includes thermal expansion of water, not continental ice melt. West Antarctica alone will contribute 10ft over the coming centuries, as of data from 2014. One could go on and one. A large part of the inertia and complacency must be blamed squarely on the media. True science reporting is rare these days.
Katharine Hayhoe’s cigarette analogy goes a long way at convincing the unconvinced . . .
A great little podcast from Climate Change News:
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/03/podcast-a-climate-scientists-first-un-summit/