Where No Man Has Gone Before

Atmospheric CO2 is pushing 400 ppm.  If you account for other man-made greenhouse gasses, we are closer to 500 ppm equivalent.

The last time the atmosphere had 400 ppm CO2 was millions of years ago.  That was before humans were even . . . however humans ended up here.

The plot above shows a recent reconstruction of global temperature since the end of the last ice age over 10,000 years ago.  The beginning of civilization is on that blue line.

Ice ages normally end fast and restart slowly.  The restart toward a new ice age is the cooling that started around 6000 years before present.  It was caused by slow orbital changes that drive the ice ages.

We reversed it.

Earth should still be cooling.  It stopped because we started dumping burned coal into the air, raising atmospheric CO2 from around 280 ppm to about 394 ppm now.  We're increasing CO2 at about 2 ppm per year, which is orders of magnitude faster than it happens naturally.

If we do nothing more the climate will stabilize at a level never before experienced by any human.  But we can't seem to stop.

If we don't stop, two things will happen.

First, natural feedbacks will take off, out of control.  Forests will burn, frozen carbon in the Arctic will thaw and be released, and lots of things like those.  Second, our emissions will add even more CO2.

The feared end state is a CO2 level of around 1000 ppm.  The last time that happened was tens of millions of years ago, when the planet was around 30 F hotter than now.

Earth has been there before, so no worries, right?

Well, making that change so fast is a little like driving around a corner.  Everything is fine at normal speed.  But at 120 mph, you have a problem.

That's what we're doing: going to a place mankind has never been, at a speed of approach that is insanely fast.

Going Rogue

Some days I feel like this woman:

Sea Ice Resources

Arctic sea ice is at record low levels now, with weeks remaining in the melt season.  Below are some sites where ice levels are tracked.

The best source of news and analysis probably is Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog.

A page with gobs and gobs of graphs and maps is here.

The Cryosphere Today has good daily maps and a sea ice area plot.  Here is yesterday's map.

Sea ice extent is defined as where ice covers at least 15% of the sea surface.  daily values are available from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).

This is today's:

Enjoy.

Weather Extremes

For a very long time (decades) scientists have predicted that the distribution of weather we get would shift toward higher temperatures.

Well, that has been happening:

More information about that graph, and the science behind it, can be found here.

What the graph says is that heat events that used to be very rare now are quite common.  The extreme events that used to happen less than 1% of the time now are 10% and more.

There are important implications to dealing with this.

First, these events come in heat waves like the one that hit the US this spring, causing fruit trees to bloom early and then have buds killed by frost when the heat wave ended.  In other words, heat waves can come at the wrong time and screw up the way nature works.

Second, the severity of the heat waves causes problems.  Heat causes drying, and thus drought.  Dry soils don't supply water for evaporative cooling, which drives temperatures up even further.  Heat begets heat, as they say.  So you end up with very intense heat waves that kill by sheer temperature.  There was a "global warming type" drought, i.e., not just dry but also very hot, in the Southwest in the early 2000s which killed pinyon pines by heat, which was pretty much unheard of.  It was about an 800-year drought.

Well, an 800-year drought according to the climate we used to have.  There have been an awful lot of 100-year and 500-year and 1000-year events in the past several years.  That's what the graph above is all about - extremely rare events now are becoming common.

This is Probably Bad . . .

Tell me if this doesn't sound like something from a sci-fi horror movie:

About 5 years ago most scientists thought Arctic sea ice would melt almost completely by the end of this century.  That was so serious and scary NASA made videos showing how serious and scary the model results were.  Pretty much no one else cared.

About 3 years ago they said it looks more like 2030-2040 or so, within the lifetimes of people alive today.  A few scientists said it could be more like 2013 to 2016.  Big gulp, check and recheck the math, try real hard to have faith in the models that even today are not capturing the speed with which the Arctic is melting.

A year or so ago they realized the acceleration was seriously screwing with the weather.  The jet stream doesn't work like it used to.  It's slower now, wavier.  It stalls out, causing all manner of extremes as systems that used to pass on through sit there and build.

Now more and more scientists are saying the 2013-2016 guys are maybe right.  It's pretty obvious: if you look at the amount of ice actually in the Arctic Ocean, it's falling off a cliff.  From here:

That red dot is this year's minimum to date, as of late August.  We still have a few weeks of ice loss left.  But you can see already that the end of year-round sea ice is upon us.

No one knows exactly what that means, but chances are it will be pretty severe.

Fundamentally the way the Arctic screws up the rest of the Northern Hemisphere's weather is that it stores huge amounts of heat during the summer and releases it during the winter.  All that heat makes the atmosphere circulate differently.

So we can expect more extreme weather.  Possibly much more extreme weather.

Strategy Overview: Food

A look at the FAO Food Price Index shows that we have a problem:

Looking at that graph you can see that there are two things going on in recent years:

1. There is an overall trend of rising food prices.
2. On top of that trend is a pattern of instability.

These are the two basic features of the effects of resource depletion.  The resource (in this case food) becomes gradually more difficult to acquire, and the difficulty of acquisition can go through "shocks" or similar.  This doesn't just mean price, but instead encompasses more penetrating problems like basic availability.  For example, so-called "food deserts" are starting to develop where grocery stores have closed down and locals need to drive many miles to get their food.

Two strategies can be used to deal with this situation, not only for food, but for many other resources.


Guarding against price/availability shocks

The short description is hoarding.  Think "squirrel."

The basic concept is simple: if some food item will not be available for six or nine months, you build up a supply ahead of time.  This is not a new idea.  It used to be standard practice for people in rural areas to do this.  My mom used to put lots of food away every year so that we would have cheap and healthy food while fresh food from the garden was unavailable.  All of my friends' mothers did this.

These days most people use "just-in-time" food supply and buy food as they need it.  The problem comes when money is tight and then some essential component, like food, becomes expensive or otherwise hard to get.

The main issue is storage.  At first glance that seems to be just a matter of finding some extra room.  The real difficulty though is preserving the quality of food.  It might go bad.  It might lose its nutrient value.  It might be attacked by rodents or insects (grains often have insect eggs within them).

What it comes down to is re-discovering knowledge that used to be commonplace.  Canning, drying, dry storage techniques for grains.  There is a lot to know about these things.  It is prudent to learn about them ahead of time and work out the kinks in your own situation.


Dealing with long-term price/availability problems

You can hoard packets of tasty and nutritious instant oatmeal, but when they become completely unavailable or too expensive for resupply, you have a problem.

Getting around this requires systemic change and often a little creativity.  Substitution with something that is more reliably available becomes necessary.

For example you can buy quick oats by the 50-lb sack and add dried fruit and spices as you please (or not).  You can still cook it in the same microwave and use the same cup just like you did with your packets, but keeping yourself in oatmeal is now radically more robust and economical.

Going down this path generally involves some level of growing your own and changing the foods you acquire.  The bottom line is, you have to develop a food supply that is stable and secure.  That might mean having your own garden or it might mean having some arrangement such as a local farmer's market or shared garden space.

These two strategies, hoarding and finding alternatives, are applicable to a variety of similar problems.  You can ride a bicycle instead of drive for many activities.  You can use a Linux-based computer or open-source software instead of unnecessarily paying for proprietary software.

In concept these things are very simple.  In practice they are not easy.  It takes a lot of know-how that has been discarded by modern culture.  Getting up to speed with reliable technologies takes some effort and persistence.

Sixteen Degrees C

A paper out in Science suggests unfathomably severe warming of 16 C if Earth hits 1000 ppm atmospheric CO2.

We are presently at around 390 ppm, increasing at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. The increase is due to industrial CO2 output and other anthropogenic changes such as turning forest to fields. The actual output from human activity is more like 4 ppm, but around half of it is absorbed into the oceans. The industrial portion is growing at a few percent per year or so.

Thus, if we stay on our present emissions path, we will end up with an atmospheric concentration of around 1000 ppm by century's end.

Three main factors could change that outcome. In simple terms they are:

1. economic collapse or energy sector changes, which would suppress industrial emissions; 
2. slowing of the oceanic carbon sink, which would increase the fraction of emissions that stay in the atmosphere (warm water dissolves less gas); and
3. natural carbon reservoirs like permafrost, which already are emitting some gas (e.g., here), could pick up speed and dump their carbon stores into the atmosphere through bacterial action on stored organic material.

It appears that anything above 400 ppm or so, which is unavoidable at this point, will melt enough permafrost to cause an unstoppable, albeit slow, release of carbon sufficient to bring us to something like 1000 ppm.

In other words, it would appear that there is a very good chance that Earth will see 1000 ppm at some point in the next few hundred years regardless of what we do now.

Back to the Science paper.

The author reviews the paleoclimate record to see what happened the last time Earth had an atmospheric concentration of 1000 ppm. This was around 30 million years ago, but the date is poorly constrained (it could be 100 million years ago) because of uncertainties in ancient CO2 concentrations. He takes temperature estimates from a few places in the tropics and near the poles, makes some basic assumptions about the global temperature distribution, and adjusts for the fact that the Sun was a little bit dimmer then.

The global temperature is estimated to have been around 16 C warmer than now.

Without getting into nuts and bolts, this is very, very bad.

A while back there was a study done about the limits of human adaptation.  It focused on the fact that, when combinations of heat and humidity produce a wet bulb temperature of 35 C or more, the human body ceases to compensate.  In other words, that is a lethal condition for humans and other mammals.  This essentially does not happen now.

You start to get regional occurrences of this lethal, wet heat at global warming levels of around 7 C.  By 12 C half of the area inhabited by humans becomes subject to killing heat waves (see image below).  Add another 4 C to that and you have the world that could very well develop within a few centuries.

A separate consequence of warming is drying of soils.  The short version is, by the time you hit 4 C of warming you have a world where most of the breadbaskets turn to desert.

The above image shows what is expected with something like 560 ppm CO2 by mid century.  The scale is the Palmer Drought Severity Index.  During the Dust Bowl conditions were around -3 with brief excursions to -6 during the driest times.  This represents the complete destruction of an awful lot of agricultural land.

The only remotely comforting thing about the prospect of reaching 1000 ppm is that the full brunt of these climate changes would take longer to develop than my life will last.  Warming of 4 C is possible by mid century.  Seven C, and the beginning of lethal wet bulb temperatures, could happen around the end of the century.  The full 16 C (or more!) would take several hundred years to develop.