Avoiding an Environmental Apocalypse

I've been catching up on my magazine reading and I came across a fascinating piece in a recent issue of New Scientist, which is usually a few steps ahead of the non-scientific press. It is a serious journal - not given to hyperbole - for scientists, although it does try to match scientific rigor with accessibility for interested lay people. The cover title of this usually staid magazine's March issue?

Earth 2099: Population crashes, Mass migration, Vast new deserts, Cities abandoned.

Well okay then.

The story says that if the Earth is warmed by a mere 4 degrees Celsius, by the year 2099 the planet will become unrecognizable. We will have warm, acidic seas that will probably not sustain fish; many of the areas where food is grown and populations flourish will no longer be able to provide for either because of vast flooding or desertification; storms will be fiercer and much more devastating; and the only places that will have enough water and resources to sustain humans will be in the high latitude areas of the planet (stress mine--because I'm shocked).

A nightmare scenario based on worst possible circumstances? Sadly, no. In fact a warming of 4 degrees Celsius is a conservative prediction according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If we don't make serious changes, and soon, warming could be markedly greater.

James Lovelock, a former NASA scientist, says of those limited high latitude areas that humanity will be calling home (exclusively) in this scenario, "That's where all the life would be.... The rest of the world will be largely desert with a few oases." Imagine what it might be like if 9 billion (the projected population by then) people are all scrambling to stake claim to a few select and prime habitable areas on the planet. Lovelock goes on to say, "Humans are in a pretty difficult position and I don't think they are clever enough to handle what's ahead. I think they'll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge...The number remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less."

It seems to me that Al Gore may have been too soft in choosing his movie title: "inconvenient" might better be replaced with "staggering" or "alarming' or perhaps even something stronger. Is any adjective too hyperbolic when you're talking about a billion humans fighting for survival amidst storms and oceans drained of life--in just 90 years? The problem of global warming is no longer the threat of an extended hurricane season and hotter summers, however real those concerns are, especially for the world's poor. We appear to be headed for something where the word cataclysm seems terrifyingly appropriate.

The article discusses how society would have to reorient circa 2099, noting that "In order to survive, humans may need to do something radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms of resource distribution." Peter Cox, who studies the dynamics of climate systems at the University of Exeter is quoted suggesting that we could determine "where the resources are, and then plan the population, food and energy production around that." In other words, we will have to adapt to disappearing resources.

To me, the whole discussion feels sort of like making your mind up to deal with cancer once it inevitably develops, rather than doing what you can to prevent it in the first place. To be sure, if you are likely to get such a troubling diagnosis - whether cancer or a dying environment - it would be wise to make meaningful (and to some, this might mean radical) changes. But wouldn't it be preferable to do everything possible to prevent disaster, rather than focusing most of your resources on planning for it?

One of the most meaningful things we can do to arrest climate change is to change the way we eat. As discussed previously, and as hammered home by the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in recent lectures in London and Paris, the meat industry is one of the most devastating causes of global warming. And this is not just factory farming--some analysis indicates that smaller farms cause more warming. They're generally better for animal welfare, water pollution, and desertification, but they actually require more resources, and thus cause more greenhouse gas emissions.

We need government change: We need a shift away from the billions in annual subsidies for the meat industry, as discussed in a Union of Concerned Scientists report. We need more healthy vegetarian foods in schools and other government programs. We need education of the public about this very real cause for alarm and potential solutions. We need leaders who understand the issues and take them seriously. But we also need all of us to take personal charge of our lives, and to do what we can personally to decrease our support for climate change.

Most of us are taking some actions, but many are not taking the action recommended by the head of the IPCC and indicated by the United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which reports that eating meat causes about 40% more global warming gases as all the cars, trucks, planes, and other forms of transport combined--that is, cutting back on our consumption of chicken, pork, and other animal products (I discuss the environmental case against meat in greater depth here).

The article in New Scientist points out that according to some accelerated climate feedback mechanisms citing potential "tipping points", the radical and devastating changes could come into being as soon as 2050. That's a mere 41 years from now. Then again, the good news is that "the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species could continue if only a couple of hundred individuals remained." Well that's a relief.

Usually, my stance is to lean into changes, to take them incrementally and slowly, so that they stick. After reading this article, I would say that going vegetarian is nothing to be taken lightly - or slowly. Lean in, for sure, but lean soon!

Here are some tips for making the move, "One Bite at a Time."

 

 

Comments

[helenwheels]

For all our lack of hubris and bragging about being the top of the food chain, as a species, we are not successful at all. Cockroaches have been here for a billion years. Us? What, 100,000? And we'll be dying out w/in the next century or 2.

Not very bright really when you look at it. Not only do we go into denial when we don't like what we hear, we repeat history nonstop, don't learn a thing from it about our own behavior.

I sure don't call that "success." Kudos to the animals who learned to really adapt & will be here long after we greedy wastrels are gone.

[amadeusfg]

Every time we have another kid, drive a car, fly in a plane, eat livestock and throw away plastic garbage, etc. - we are killing life on Earth. We have known this for almost 40 years, yet we have demonstrated the most human quality of denial. It is too late, and we are not clever enough. I think it will be awful what will happen to subsequent generations, and maybe even my own.

If I live to be 100, I will see 2060. My willingness to be surprised, and my morbid scientific curiosity will keep me going. As scientists, we have never had the opportunity to witness a great extinction. But I sincerely hope that I do not have to be witness to a great culling of the human population - even though I know that it will be healthy for the environment eventually. Frankly, I will be prepared with that "cyanide capsule" or some other exit strategy - should it get to be too horrific.

[amadeusfg]

Lovelock is right. It is good news, it means that the cancer (toxin-producing humans) will be abated, and the organism (earth) will likely survive despite us. Even though we are currently undergoing what is considered by some to be the sixth greatest extinction known.

Progress and technology lead to poisoning the earth. The Amish did know what they were talking about.

[mioffe]

Rhetticent: “To GW proponents, the assumption that water vapor is not a driver is like the Creationists view that God made man: it is unassailable and taken as an article of FAITH. It is not fact.”
Dear Rhetticent: Most computer modeling looks at water vapor as static element in air, when they trapped infrared radiation and heat the air.
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, more important, than carbon dioxide. Molecular weight of water vapor is 18, nitrogen-28, oxigen-32, carbon dioxide-44. That means that water vapor is lighter than almost all others gases in the air.

It takes 339 kcal of energy to evaporate 1 kg of water. It takes only one kcal to heat one kg of water on 1º C.
It take 80 kcal of energy to melt one kg of ice, when its temperature will be 0º C.

In atmosphere we have water vapor, small droplet of fog, clouds and droplets of rain. If water vapor as GHG will trap infrared radiation that energy will evaporate droplets of fog etc., and cool the air lifting up lighter water vapor close to clouds and beyond, where heat can escape to space.
If you will look in dynamic water vapor actually cool the air.
Attitude to water vapor as static component misleads many scientists, Al Gore and our Government.
This is huge problem!

[research]

The Water vapor simplification was true of the first generation climate models. Bad Idea, agreed.

But have you studied the newer studies?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Snn&ei=nnoQSsu7C4OAtgP_iITvAg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=global+warming+simulation+with+detailed+water+vapour&spell=1

(my link is just a google search, but I'm hoping you will go search out the newest water vapor simulating climate models, and links to the good ones:)

I'm for green energy and green living, AGW or not. but I would like to hear more from someone really interested in the water vapor simulations to date.

[mioffe]

research: “The Water vapor simplification was true of the first generation climate models. Bad Idea, agreed.
But have you studied the newer studies?”
Dear Research, I studied them before and looked in Google, what you offer.
My conclusion-it is shame for scientists. They overestimate or underestimate the same water vapor, clouds, absolutely forgetting to look at energy to evaporate water and water droplets, which we have in atmosphere.
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.
It is huge mistakes if our Government solutions depend from this kind of science,

[research]

I was hoping you would point me to a few good links.

I thought this one was interesting:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-response-public-comments.pdf

My real question is:

Is anybody doing a really quality simulation of all the effects known like all those you mention?

The numerical physics are well known for these effect, but the complexity requires super computer time.

[research]

Here's a very good analysis of the water feedback simulations.

I'm still researching b but it appears that Water vapor feedback was approximated BECAUSE IT"S A POSITIVE FEEDBACK:

CHAOS.

"Small changes in initial conditions have massive effects on the outcome of the project through positive feedback. Negative feedback dampens down changes in a system and returns the system to a stable state. Positive feedback amplifies change and moves the system towards an unstable state. This is the way rumours are spread and reputations made or lost. A small comment on, for example, the value of a service catalogue, or one person's positive experience of using the catalogue, gets amplified to the point where it determines the whole outcome of the project."

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~nkm/ISSS/ItSMF%20Chaos%20Theory.doc

[mioffe]

Research: “I'm for green energy and green living, AGW or not.”
Dear research, if windmills produce electricity we are loosing around 50% of wind energy on resistance of batteries, when we charge them. When we use batteries around 50% of their energy will be loosing when power from batteries will go to customers. Efficiency of this process around 25% in best case.
The same we could tell about solar cells.
Efficiency of using sun energy in solar cells is around 1%.
As wind, as solar cells power needs energy from greed, when wind or sunrays are absent.
Any sources of energy, which do not provide cooling of atmosphere, are heat polluters, which additionally heat the air.
I think that properties of water vapor actually cool the atmosphere.
We could increase amount of water vapor in atmosphere by growing forests. Trees not only will use sun energy for evaporation and cooling air, but also will provide us with the cheapest in the world source of energy-wood, stored in the trees for hundred years. We could use that energy in small power plants as for electricity (less than 20% of fuel energy) as for heat. Annual harvesting of trees in USA forest today enough for energy needs in year 2010. If we will pay attention to grow trees the same as to grow forest we not only will reduce carbon dioxide, be energy independent, but also fight global warming with help only Canada and Mexico.

[research]

I agree about wood energy, that's what I am talking about with Waste BioChar.

It's not just wood energy, it's all organics can be BioChared. Sewage, agreiwaste, rendering waste plastic.

The efficiency of solar cells feeding the grid for peak air conditioning load is 15-40%.

You don't store it in batteries.

Modern batteries like lithium ion, are 80% charge discharge eff.

So say a plug in electric car charged by solar cells. at 20% eff, is about 10% efficiency at the tire.

Remember that gas cars are only 15%, not including the losses creating and transporting the oil and gas.

[AngieMom57]

Meatless Monday.
Meatless in May,

A day without animal foods, not so challenging and your heart will thank you for it.

[LTBROWN]

Oh boy

[mioffe]

Dear Kathy Freston:
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.

[gilbot]

Wasn't the global mean temperature during the Mesozoic Era at least 10 degrees warmer than today? There was no shortage of habitable planet back then! I have read Lovelock's books, and always thought he was really underestimating the power of DNA/morphology to adapt and ultimately thrive (Given time in enormous scales, and absent KT events, like human viral spread.)

Evolution is messy, mean business, and always requires a population­-bottlenec­k to really function well. Unfortunately, "Less People" is the ugly, unfair, inevitable solution to Earth's only problem. Breeders need to amend their ways if they chafe at the idea of nature amending them for us. And YES, I absolutely believe in a Sentient Gaia fully gearing up to balance out the human imbalance, and rightfully so. It breaks her heart, but she has other children to think about besides us. Think "fever"

If anyone can locate the data that suggests global warming being more or less uniform from stratosphere to ionosphere (contradicting an exclusively greenhouse-based warming in favor of an additional solar catalyst model) it would be relevant here. I think it was University of Alabama? couldn't find it myself.....

BTW. It's gonna get hotter. There isn't much that could reverse it, we can only soften the blow. Tuff, but true. Plan accordingly! And NO that doesn't mean futility absolves you of your moral obligation to consume less / heal more.

I probably shouldn't have posted this. It's too "eco-fascist" for most tastes.

[RuthHenriquez]

I read through these comments. Unless I overlooked something, not one of them addresses the root problem: human population. I don't care how many green farming techniques you use to feed a vegetarian population, providing food for billions of people is going to consume energy, water, and habitat for other (necessary) species to a degree that is unsustainable.

There is a Monsanto ad in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly. It says something like "9 billion people by mid-century, and we're going to feed them." Oh really? Will Monsanto also provide water for them, after the glaciers have melted and the rivers have run dry?

Our numbers are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. (Interestingly, back in the 60s and early 70s it was a hotter topic.) At some point we are going to have to make hard choices about how many people a finite landmass can sustain, and then try to figure out how to engineer non-growth economic models.

Meanwhile, we're making things miserable for other living things, who have to try to survive in the wastelands we're creating. The blogger writes, "Then again, the good news is that 'the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species could continue if only a couple of hundred individuals remained.' Well that's a relief." At this point, I don't know if I believe we deserve to survive.

[gilbot]

Non-growth models? Doesn't that pretty much require global forced sterilization and totalitarian rule at some point? The communities that need to curb their breeding the MOST are the one's that are LEAST interested / capable / aware of doing so. Yes, I know. Really, I know how that sounds, and its implications. There is no apparent, ethical/efficient way to get 6-9 billion ego-centric monkeys to simlutaneously curb their reproduction. If someone has a fairer solution than cataclysm for population control, they need to get it up and running FAST. Has China's model worked? Honest question.

Y'all know that Vonnegut story about a 65 billion-pe­rson-Earth forced onto "birth control pills" that simply make you numb from the waist down... that would certainly be a bummer.

[BrettnCalgary]

Have no concern, nature has its' ways of controlling populations that get out of synch with their environment. It will make forced sterilization and totalitarianism look like happy spring days at the park, but, oh well. Like we will have a choice.

[Cheri Shankar - Huffpost Blogger]

Wow! Kathy, this is such an eye opener!

Don't you sometimes feel like Chicken Little? I sometimes imagine myself in the future, hand on hip and finger wagging, declaring "I TOLD YOU SO!" after the last glacier has melted, the last polar bear has died and water has become as valuable and precious as oil. It seems that everything we are doing now will ensure our extinction in the not too far off future. NO ONE wants to sacrifice. No one wants to deal with reality. And no one seems to care about what happens to their grandkids and great grandchildren. If our grandparents didn't give a hoot about the Nazi's and not fight in the second World War, where would we be today? They made such sacrifices for us, the future generations. Why can't we do the same?

The fact is, with a simple decision...what we choose to eat...we could make such a profound difference but sadly politicians don't like to ask people to sacrifice. When President Carter asked people to turn down their thermostats and wear sweaters, well, look at what happened! One term and out! No president since Carter or Roosevelt has asked us to make sacrifices.

And when it comes to food, no one wants to give up their meat. It is like a primal response. Sure I'll drive a hybrid, install solar panels, recycle and buy organic, but give up meat? Never!

[topgunna]

"...and water has become as valuable and precious as oil."

It's already happened! A 20 oz bottle of Fiji currently costs more than a gallon of gas!

The Chicken Little reference is VERY appropriate though.

[Overtone]

Revolutionary alternatives to fossil fuels are likely to be widely available in a few years.

Breakthrough technologies will rapidly make possible future electric and hybrid cars that need no fuel or external battery charge.

The cars can turn into power plants when parked. Imagine vehicles that need no fuel and pay for themselves - by wirelessly selling power to the local utility.

This will become a cost-competitive alternative to building new coal and nuclear power plants.

It reflects one application of new technologies that tap energy sources never yet commercialized - such as ambient heat, Zero Point Energy, and hydrinos.

Scientists will be understandably skeptical until independent laboratory validation takes place.

That is on the horizon, as is production of self-powered generators - as well as demonstration devices for schools and universities.

See http://www.chavaenergy.com for more information concerning magnetic motors and generators, and self powered internal combustion engines that utilize hydrinos.

These technologies are inherently inexpensive. They have surprising potential to supersede nuclear power and accelerate reversal of our economic and energy concerns.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Im not sure if I can condone stealing energy from another multi-verse! This is deep stargate stuff you are proposing!

[gilbot]

One other thing about Zero-point transport that would be super cool-- the permanent-nomad class that would ensue. What a circus that will be!

[topgunna]

I'm curious to know what you would accept as evidence against the anthropogenic warming theory. Since warm weather, cool weather, wet weather, dry weather, violent weather and calm weather all "prove" that human-created CO2 is destroying the planet, is there anything that can possibly disprove this notion?

Take gravity for instance. If I threw a ball into the air and it hung in the air, I would take this as evidence against gravity. Obviously, such an occurance is purely hypothetical, and I would never expect it to happen. But it at least provides a way for the idea of gravity of be falsified.

In that respect, how can AGW possibly be falsified? Surely, there must some hypothetical event or scenario that would falsify the theory. If we're approaching the subject from a scientific (not religious) standpoint, there must be a way to falsify the claims.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

you could prove to us that greenhouse gases do not trap heat in the atmosphere or that CO2 was not a green house gas. Then we would have to see what other drivers are causing the warming.

[topgunna]

Well I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which does have an influence on the planet's temperature by slowing the rate at which heat is radiated to space. I certainly don't dispute this effect, but I do dispute its relative magnitude with respect to other natural forcings. I certainly dispute the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect.

My question wasn't meant to be "how can I prove this to you" - but rather, what would we have to observe in the climate system that the alarmist community would accept as counter-evidence?

[JanBjernfalk]

All (credible) scientists on both sides of the AGW debate appear to agree and accept that CO2 is a GHG. That's well within the "settled" science.

What is not settled is how much effect man-made CO2 has, and in particular whether added CO2 (a relatively weak GHG on its own) causes a positive (or negative) feedback which influences how much H2O greenhouse vapor (stronger GHG). The science on that seems unsettled to say the least.

AGW theory says that manmade CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, and furthermore that all (or most) of the warming since the Little Ice Age is due to manmade CO2 (as opposed to other things like solar cycles, el nino, etc).

topgunna asks what *evidence* would falsify AGW theory. I don't know. Would a prolonged period of cooling (or lack of warming), in the face of ever-increasing CO2 do it?

Personally, I would prefer to see a conclusive test which establishes whether CO2 has a net positive (or negative) feedback on H2O or other GHG's, and to what extent, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet.

[mioffe]

Al Gore is not scientist. He is good writer and made good point from everything, what his friends-scientists explain to him. Al Gore has huge popularity in the world maybe because of election 2000. He author of Earth in the balance, 1992, An inconvenient truth, 2006, co-author of movie. He has support in mass media in the world and more dangerous-supports from Government of USA.
He is wrong and implementation of his ideas will bring huge damage for world economy, His good intention could bring huge damage to nature.

Al Gore explains global warming by increasing amount of carbon dioxide, which trapped infrared radiation, and heat the air. This heat evaporated additional amount of water vapors which also greenhouse gas and trapped infrared radiation, which additionally heat the air.

He misunderstands role of water vapor and simplifies explanation of global warming.
It is not only carbon dioxide.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming.

[cyberbrook]

Another great article!

Eco-Eating (http://www.brook.com/veg) is the way to go... for your health, for the animals, and most certainly for our environment upon which we all depend for survival.

[mzrecycle]

I don't know how old you are, but some of us got on the band wagon back when there was still time to avert the serious problems. Gore did. I took an ecology class in 1971 and became a vegetarian that year. During the Reagan years of the 80's, I have to say that a lot of us got sidetracked by. . .who knows what. I just remember those years as a recession and everyone feeling the need to wear a lot of gold. All the "back to nature" talk of the 60's &70's just started to look a bit passe.
I've been telling my husband we need to buy some land in Canada for years, as that's the only part of North America that is going to be habitable.
Anyway, glad to have you onboard.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Too bad Frank Herbert died. In his books I don't think he intended that the desert planet would be Earth in the future. It would sure be interesting to hear what he would have said about this latest development.