'Climate Change Isn't The End Of The World' - Total, Absolute Bollocks!

In a WSJ article yesterday (p. A17) by David R. Henderson and John M. Cochrane ('Climate Change Isn't the End of the World') it is claimed that climate change is really no biggie.  After all the "costs of moving and adapting are not as imposing as they seem", and besides "carbon dioxide hurts nobody's health" and it's "good for plants"..   In fact, it is incredible that such recycled rubbish could even appear in a serious newspaper, but there it is.  Climate codswallop is indeed fertile soil for the denizens of the Hoover Institution. They earn their living hawking it.

The formidable problems of trying to adapt I've already dealt with here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/climate-change-adaptation-will-be.html

Really choice is the authors' remark:

"It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable"

True, which is why I did discuss them in the post associated with the preceding link, especially the latter.  I also showed why the various geo-engineering solutions are totally impractical!

None of the problems I examined are in the distant future as the authors seem to believe, but basically right around the corner. For example, the projection by the U.S. Geological Survey for the loss of Florida land owing to sea rise by 2035 - or barely 18 years from now. (This is depicted below.)Estimated economic cost to Florida's economy? Well over $10 billion, and factoring in inflation  - probably closer to $20 billion.

As for the claim CO2 "hurts nobody" I wonder where these two Hoover Institution bozos who wrote the piece got that idea or if they ever lived in a dense urban center with thousands of vehicles outgassing CO2 (as well a CO) for hours on the day.    But more important and deadly is the cumulative indirect effect of CO2 being added by the gigatons each year to our atmosphere.   To put it into quantitative terms, the temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by 0.6W/ m²  and this is almost entirely due to the annual rate of CO2 concentrations increasing. Further,  every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m².

Prof. Gunter Weller (formerly of the Univ. of Alaska Geophysical Institute)  estimated the runaway greenhouse effect would kick in when the CO2 concentration level of 600 ppm is surpassed-  which seems reasonable. If it is just over 400 ppm now - by many conservative measures -  then doing the math (adding 2 ppm  per year and 2 W/ m²     puts us in jeopardy by 2100.

The authors claim "typical costs are well blow 10 percent if gross domestic product  in the year 2100 and beyond".   But they are basing this on way too conservative models that have already been shown not to have reckoned in the expected much more rapid increases. In fact, by 2100,  if nothing is done much earlier, economic costs could well exceed 50 percent of GDP for most nations of the planet.  These costs will be engendered by:

- Collapse of power grids and energy infrastructure, i.e. from being unable to meet demand in a climate where 130- 140 F is hit in most cities around the world daily.

- Associated collapse of utility electrical pumping stations, i.e. to provide enough water for a much larger population. (because electric power is needed to pump water for use)

- Spread of tropical diseases including cholera, dengue fever and worm parasite infestations, e.g.

Millions more tapeworm cyst infections of human brains in affected areas - perhaps four fifths of our planet's land surface.

Also filiarisis worm infections - as shown on the left. Estimated cost to treat victims, including in North America: over $100 billion per year.

Adapting to worm infestations may be the most straightforward process for some kind of adaptation but require enormous supplies of anti-worm serums, meds such as Ketrax. I recall here my own worm infestation while in Peace Corps - noticed only after being awakened one night by intense itching of my skin, mainly on the inner thighs. As I switched the night light on and spotted definite wriggling movement of the skin, I realized the worms would spread if I didn't act. The cure? Ketrax, prescribed by the spoonful (by a dermatologist) three times a day. After a few bouts of vomiting the vermin out (visible wriggling in the vomit), all had been eliminated. I don't know that people will even be properly diagnosed as multiple worm infestations spread on approaching the cusp of the runaway greenhouse.

We will also have to expect long before the runaway greenhouse kicks in, the spread of antibiotic resistant diseases which will add even more enormous medical costs - and indeed, there may be no way to stem such infections once temperature averages are beyond a certain limit.

Left unsaid, is how increasing CO2 is also altering the composition of our oceans to render them less supportive of life.   As recently as 2012 scientists from Columbia University, which led  much of the research,  have found surging levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that forced down the pH of the ocean by overall 0.1 mean unit in the last century. This is 10 times faster than the closest historical comparison from 56 million years ago. It's deadly serious because - like the margins for ushering in a runaway greenhouse effect, the margins of safety for acidic oceans are extremely low. Hence, one can't tell by the small magnitude of numerical pH that the increment change is nothing to fret over.

As noted in earlier blog posts: the seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid. The particular chemical reaction is:

H2O + CO2 -> H2 CO3

The lower the pH level of the seawater ('7' is neutral pH), the more acidic. This is also worrisome because mass extinctions of marine creatures in the past have been linked to instances of increased ocean acidification. Thus,  the current incremental change could also threaten important species. This according to Baerbel Hoenisch, the paleoceanographer at Columbia who was lead author of a  2012  paper that appeared in the journal Science. As he noted:

“If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about — coral reefs, oysters, salmon,”

By one estimate, at the rate of acidification, the only marine life that will still survive by 2050 will be jellyfish.

As for the authors' claim that "CO2 is good for plants", the response is yes, but WHAT kind? Seven years earlier we learned in The Wall Street Journal (June 4, p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race'; June 21, 2010, p. D1 that at least 40% of U.S. corn and soybean crops will "harbor Roundup resistant super weeds."  Indeed, CO2 spiking concentrations have already led to "super weeds" such as a pig weed variant capable of releasing an irritant chemical known as  urushiol and resistant to the most toxic weedicides, excepting perhaps the highly  carcinogenic agents known as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat.

Yes, the plants just love the CO2, but not the kind of plants we want!

The two Hoover -based morons who wrote the piece also insist on the ease of moving, but how will they reckon such climate change flight (say away from an area laden with brain -infesting worms) when it is set against similar migrations occurring simultaneously worldwide?

They ought to consult the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' , held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium,  Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.  Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflicts that climate change triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.  Supporting the national defense position, nearly all the reinsurance companies (like Munich Re) have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.

A vastly more serious voice than the two Hoover Institution  clowns is economics and psychology expert George Loewenstein.  His take was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in a recent AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".

Indeed, extreme weather events derived from climate change have killed more than twice as many people in the U.S. as terror attacks in the past 15 years - including the carnage on September 11, 2001.   In fact, the slow rolling disaster of ever intensifying climate change can be thought of as a mode of natural terror which we dismiss or diminish at our peril.   New research also discloses that the runaway greenhouse isn't as far off or unlikely as some might wish to believe. See, e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130730163146.htm

But a word of caution: the astronomers who did the research show again why they also need to communicate with climate scientists  That is, an increasing solar constant is not required to trigger the runaway, only increasing radiative heating of the atmosphere via added CO2.  For every 2 ppm higher CO2 concentration we are registering increases in the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m².


Here's a timely heads up when one might encounter articles such as the one from the WSJ yesterday: If it's written by authors based at the Hoover Institution don't trust a word of what is put forward. (And look at the end of such op-ed pieces to see where the tract originated. As we know the Hoover Institution is one of the primary enclaves for climate deniers and skeptics.)

"Doomsday Clock" Moved Closer to Midnight

This morning at 10:00 Eastern time, in news that ought to send chills down ever citizen's spine, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the second hand of the Doomsday Clock another half minute closer to midnight. Hitherto it had been set at 3 minutes to midnight, since 2015.  The new setting marks metaphorically the acknowledgement of the highest danger facing the planet since 1953, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. conducted multiple H-bomb tests in the atmosphere.

A global failure to fight climate change and concern over Donald Trump’s cabinet picks were cited as reasons for the increased threat to the planet. Of course, none of this ought to surprise the intelligent, high information citizen who is able to reason and discern fake news from the genuine form.

While the BAS historically has rejected that "one individual" can move the clock, it is clear to me that they have been alarmed following Trump's mid-December tweet that:

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

As a number of strategic analysts had pointed out, including staff from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. already has just under 5,000 nuclear warheads in its active arsenal and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. This is more than enough to turn the world to ash about six times over.

Given that Russia, according to the same strategic sources, "has 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. does", one might assume that Trump - via his tweet - really meant overtaking the Russians. But to the scientists of the BAS it may also have meant tearing up the new START Treaty which limits strategic weapons to 1,550 each by February, 2018. At least these would be the possible interpretations IF one assumed Trump knew that the Russians had a 400 -nuke advantage and also knew what the START Treaty was. But since he doesn't even read his daily briefs, that's unlikely.

The only conclusion to draw from the BAS staff' reasoning for citing Trump's cabinet then is that they don't believe any of them possess the gravitas or wherewithal to influence Trump in any way - say to stay his hands from entering the nuclear codes if he felt the need to do so.  The BAS own words confirm this:

"We understand that Mr. Trump has been in office only days, that many of his cabinet nominees are awaiting confirmation and that he has had little time to take official action. But Mr. Trump’s statements and actions have been unsettling. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding and even deploying the American nuclear arsenal. He has expressed disbelief in the scientific consensus on global warming. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or reject expert advice related to international security. And his nominees to head the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and the Budget have disputed or questioned climate change."

As I pointed out in the previous post, the man is out of touch with reality -hence certifiably insane by any sensible definition. His cabinet picks for EPA, Energy Dept. are not much better. Hence, the dire clock warning.   As the BAS statement continued:

"Last year, and the year before, we warned that world leaders were failing to act with the speed and on the scale necessary to protect citizens from the extreme dangers posed by climate change and nuclear war. During the past year, the need for leadership intensified but was met with inaction and brinkmanship."

Climate change, of course, enters as the more slow rolling form of human extinction. Indeed, in my Nov. 4 post from last year I cited Economic and psychology expert George Loewenstein, who was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in an AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".

The results of the AP survey were similar to a larger survey of 750 experts conducted earlier last year by the World Economic Forum. Their Global Risks Report 2016 found that the five biggest global risks in terms of impact were: 1) climate change, 2) weapons of mass destruction, 3) water crises, 4) large scale migration, and 5) severe energy price shocks.

The contributors to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists also cited the threat posed to democracy by fake news and the influence exerted on elections as reasons for the new setting, according to a panel of scientists involved in the process.

The appropriate symbolic time is deduced each year by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The new reading brings the threat closer to midnight than it’s been since the height of the Cold War – when it reached 11:58pm.

When asked what was the single biggest factor in moving the hands forward, Professor of Meteorology David Titley said the dissemination of facts and science expressed through a “verbal looseness” was a particular threat.

“Policy that is sensible requires facts to be facts,” one theoretical physicist added.

And, of course, "verbal looseness" is epitomized by Trump's reckless December tweet on nuclear capacity.  As I pointed out no sane person ought to be propounding nuclear policy via a cartoon language medium. The very choice to do so indicates that person lacks all his marbles. Hence, if I were the BAS I'd be hitting the panic button over Trump's verbal looseness too! Anyone who uses Twitter to bloviate on nuclear forces and capacity has several screws loose.

How would humanity actually hitting midnight look? The best fictional portrayal of such a catastrophe was probably in the 1983 movie 'Threads'. The film is about 1hr and 47 minutes long, Brit-made,  but if it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either already: a) brain dead, or b) a zombie and amongst the walking dead.

'Threads' is set in the industrial city of Sheffield, UK, and to be sure one needs to get adjusted to the peculiar accent. But once one does, he or she will be granted an inside look at a future none of us want to face. (One U.S. reviewer said that "Threads makes 'The Day After' look like a day at the races".) Having seen both,  I concur.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China (the Trumpies want to battle over the Spratley Islands) need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet-Russian invasion of Iran, which possibility is no longer - since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment monies into Iran and its reactors, the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force is accurate to any unfolding future scenario. From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, pointed furry ears, scales and rat nose. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means we need to heed the warning conveyed by the Doomsday clock.

See also:

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

Excerpt:

'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately".

Risk Analysts Agree: Climate Change Is Biggest Threat - But Not On Candidates' Radar

It really wasn't surprising to me to read in the most recent TIME (Nov. 7, p. 48)that one of the elements of angst keeping teens up at night is climate change-greenhouse warming. Logically, it should be given they will be the ones to inherit a planet with polluted cities, oceans suitable only for jellyfish and heat waves that will make current ones look balmy by comparison. And we're not even getting into the major extinction of animal life going on even as I write.

Also, no surprise that according to a recent AP  report, 17 of 21 risk assessment specialists ranked climate change as the top threat to humanity, selected from a broad spectrum. Again, it should be ranked so for any sentient beings paying attention, which often means reading much more than provided by the corporate media. Those who need to understand why the corporate media would not give full attention to climate change, or portray it in terms of "equal and opposing viewpoints" (i.e. to denial or skepticism) should read Robert McChesney's 'The Problem of the Media'.

Anyway, the risk experts were particularly chagrined to observe that neither presidential candidate has the five major threats properly on their radar, or cited in their various speeches. Why not? Is it a fear of "negativity"?  That would hardly be applicable in the case of Trump who revels in negativity, i.e. that the nation is spiraling down the proverbial toilet. But perhaps he avoids threats like climate change  because it entails science, which he  doesn't understand.

So while Trump waxes long on immigration (giant walls needed to build) and terrorism, we hear nary a word about a threat that vastly exceeds either. According to University of California engineering professor and expert on human -caused disasters, Bob Bea,  quoted in yesterday's Denver Post (p. 11A):

"I have not heard or read about any significant deliberations of the major risks that face our country today and tomorrow."

Even Clinton appears to be more concerned with financial  insecurity and gun violence than climate change or the real risk of nuclear confrontation with Russia.  This, in fact, was a front and center worry of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in a recent report - especially as regards Syria and the adoption o possibly "no fly zones".

Both candidates, in terms of ignoring the primary threat of climate change, would have done well to look up last year's 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' , held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium,  Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.  Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflicts that climate change triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.  Supporting the national defense position, nearly all the reinsurance companies (like Munich Re) have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.

All of the above could have been cited by either candidate - in any of their  forums, debates - but wasn't.  Economic and psychology expert George Loewenstein, was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in the AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".

Indeed, extreme weather events derived from climate change have killed more than twice as many people in the U.S. as terror attacks in the past 15 years - including the carnage on September 11, 2001.   In fact, the slow rolling disaster of ever intensifying climate change can be thought of as a mode of natural terror which we dismiss or diminish at our peril.

Yet it didn't remotely make the radar in any major political forum. One can understand this omission in the case of a scientifically illiterate or unread person who dismisses global warming as a "blurtation",  but it is incomprehensible for any leader who must confront it.  When asked to rate Clinton and Trump to their attention to major threats facing the nation and the world, 14 of the 21 risk experts gave Trump an average of 'F', and Clinton a C+.  Not much to brag about!

Seth Baum, executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute offered (ibid.) that Clinton "appeared to be assessing risks based on more careful analysis"  whereas Trump "appears to rely more on intuition". Which is a polite way of saying Trump doesn't read science articles, books or papers but goes by his gut.

The results of the AP survey were similar to a larger survey of 750 experts conducted earlier this year by the World Economic Forum. Their Global Risks Report 2016 found that the five biggest global risks in terms of impact were: 1) climate change, 2) weapons of mass destruction, 3) water crises, 4) large scale migration, and 5) severe energy price shocks.

At least three of the four (and possible (5)) can be directly tied to overpopulation, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-alert-biggest-problem-remains.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/08/of-dead-lions-and-swarming-migrants-why.html

Part of the mandate of our leaders is to bring these threats and problems to the attention of the people. It isn't to allow them to remain ignorant and comfortably ensconced in a fool's paradise.  The risk assessment surveys cited here impart a clear warning shot that it will have to be up to citizens to inform themselves, not wait for their leaders to do it. That then implies action on these issues may have to percolate from the ground up.