Climate, wrote Oscar Wilde, "is what you expect. Weather is what you get." And weather is a chaotic beast. In the past 12 months alone, Ireland has endured some of the worst flooding in a century, followed by the hardest freeze in four decades, and, in recent months, near-drought conditions.
With both environmental activists and climate-change deniers attempting to use one extreme weather event or the other to 'prove' their completely contradictory positions, small wonder that the public and large sections of the media do not know who or what to believe.
Amid all this apparent confusion, the underlying trends are crystal clear. The planet is running a dangerous fever. The first six months of 2010 (which includes the prolonged cold snap in Europe and parts of the US) is now officially the hottest half-year since records began. In fact, the 11 hottest years since accurate global recording began in 1880 have all been in the last 13 years.
Last month's 'State of the Climate' report from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration states that global warming is, quite simply "undeniable".
If at this stage you find yourself still doubting climate science, you may also want to re-think whether evolution, plate tectonics and atomic theory may also be elaborate hoaxes, since these too are scientific theories developed, tested, challenged and reappraised by thousands of professionals in the field over decades.
Still, what harm could a couple of degrees centigrade possibly do? To answer this question, think of your own body. No matter what the weather is like, your average internal temperature is maintained at a steady 37?C. Were that temperature to rise by just 10% – to around 41?C – you would fall dangerously ill, and unless that fever were controlled, you would suffer organ failure and worse within hours.
The earth's average surface temperature is around 14.5?C, and, despite wide variations from the poles to the tropics, this average temperature has remained virtually unchanged since the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years or so ago. This is our planet's 'body temperature', and it is held in constant balance by a highly sophisticated climate system, a system whose complexity – and sensitivity – we are only now beginning to fully grasp. This is why scientists have warned repeatedly about the 2?C "red line" that we must at all costs avoid crossing.
So where are we headed? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a range of temperature-rise scenarios for the 21st century. These run from 1.8?C to 6.4?C. The lower figures are only possible if drastic, urgent steps are taken to cut emissions worldwide by at least 80%, while the higher end reflects the business-as-usual path. The latter is the path humanity, in its wisdom, has decided to follow.
Given that we now are bang on target for at least a 6?C global average temperature increase this century, we ought to know what that actually means. Here's a degree-by-degree guide to the decades ahead, based on a summary of the best available peer-reviewed scientific guidance. Brace yourself for a bumpy ride:
1° - There is little or no wiggle room here, as greenhouse-gas emissions have already pushed the dial up by an average of 0.8?C since the pre-industrial era, with more already 'in the pipeline' due to what's known as climate inertia. As the world reaches the first full degree centigrade (the equivalent of pushing up global average temperatures by around 6.5%), the effects are being felt most acutely at the poles. The Arctic ice pack is already under full-scale assault, and virtually every glacier on the planet is in headlong retreat. Even the mighty Greenland shelf is already feeling the heat. That one degree is destabilising natural systems in a million different ways, some obvious, many subtle, but almost none helpful. The reduction in the number of winter frost days in Canada has led to an explosive increase in pine beetle attacks. In British Colombia alone, an area larger than England is under attack from these beetles, and many of these great forests are now starting to emit, instead of absorb, carbon as a consequence.
2° - According to the EU, this is the line we must, at all costs, avoid crossing. Warming is now accelerating much more quickly, especially in the high latitudes. At this temperature, the world's great glaciers are committed to destruction and the fracturing of the edges of the Greenland ice shelf is underway in earnest. The Arctic ice pack has disappeared and the region is now open ocean for much of the year, leading to a huge increase in solar energy absorption and a further quickening of the warming trend. Globally, extreme weather events roll in with ever-increasing regularity. In a warmer world, precipitation increases, leading to more flooding. However, shifts in rainfall patterns lead to a dramatic increase in desertification, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. The outlook for the world's oceans at 2° is ominous. Huge increases in absorbed CO2 are leading to ocean acidification, while coral bleaching and die-off from warmer water temperatures becomes widespread. Global food production is down by a quarter as a result of severe weather events and the effects of prolonged high temperatures.
3° - Our fate is sealed. Global starvation from the near-collapse in agricultural production has led to widespread political instability, with many regimes collapsing as starvation and panic spreads. Globalised trade has been sharply reduced, with many of the countries we in the 'first world' currently import our produce from either unwilling or unable to supply us. In a 3° world, the seven million square kilometre Amazon rain forest is in flames, emitting many billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The whole Amazon region becomes a smouldering desert, with far-reaching consequences for the global climate system. Meanwhile, sea levels have begun to rise much more quickly, as a consequence both of thermal expansion (water expands as it warms) and the melting of land-based ice. Greenland is now in full collapse. It will, over time, add seven metres to global sea levels, but already the world's great cities, almost all of which are located on the coastlines, have been abandoned. At 3°, the vast permafrost zones in northern Canada and Siberia are breaking down, and the methane trapped for millennia in this once-frozen landscape is now pouring into the atmosphere. Methane is, molecule for molecule, over 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so the effect of billions of tonnes of methane seeping into the atmosphere is to ratchet up the cycle of runaway heating still further.
4° - The last time earth was 4?C warmer than today was 40 million years ago, and at that time, the planet was ice-free from pole to pole. While Antarctica is so vast that it will take time for its complete destruction, in a 4? world, western Antarctica has followed Greenland into collapse, adding another five to seven metres to global sea levels over time. Coastal inundation and more severe storms fuelled by hotter ocean temperatures are forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee inland. Vast amount of infrastructure is abandoned. Food production has been severely hit, and famine conditions are spreading from the poorer countries right into the heart of Europe and the US. The good news, such as it is, for Ireland, is that our maritime location and latitude will shield us from the most severe effects for longer than many other countries. However, just how Ireland will be able to prevent millions of desperate climate refugees from mainland Europe seeking sanctuary in 'Lifeboat Ireland' is another matter. At 4?, the global economy has essentially ceased to function; every country, perhaps every family, is now fending for themselves. In this new world, the IPCC projects "worldwide agricultural drought". It's 1845 again, but this time, there is no New World to escape to.
5° - The world is by now a place barely recognisable to today's denizens. There are no rainforests; inland temperatures have risen by perhaps 10?C, leaving vast continental areas uninhabitable and much of what used to be the coastlines under several metres of water. The effect on the natural world has been apocalyptic, with species disappearing in their tens of thousands. The web of complex life on earth is rapidly unravelling. Humanity, from its apex in the early 21st century of just over seven billion, has plummeted, due to starvation and warfare, into just millions. Desperate governments are trying to relocate survivors to the far north. Countries with military wherewithal grab their neighbours' territory; expect the US to invade Canada while China annexes much of Siberia. However, much of the potentially productive land is lost to forest fires, which rage in a hotter, CO2-heavy climate. "A drastic reduction in human populations is unambiguously the most likely outcome of a rise of global temperatures towards five degrees," is how author Mark Lynas expressed it. The above scenario is bad, but unfortunately, it can get worse, much worse.
6° - Hell has been unleashed. The world's oceans are lifeless and toxic, as super storms and tsunamis batter the survivors on land. Deep-sea heating, most likely in the shallower Arctic ocean, destabilises billions of tonnes of once-frozen methane clathrate deposits, which rush to the surface and explode on impact with the atmosphere, triggering the equivalent of a global nuclear holocaust. This happened at least once before, around a quarter of billion years ago, when a 6?C temperature spike led to the kill-off of well over 90% of all life on the planet. An average temperature rise of this magnitude would be akin to your own body temperature hitting 50?C – of course that could never happen, as you would be long since dead. "So far as we know, this is the only planet in the entire universe which has summoned forth life in all its brilliance and variety", wrote Mark Lynas. "To knowingly cut this flowering short is undoubtedly a crime, one more unspeakable even than the cruellest genocide or most destructive war. If each person is uniquely valuable, each species is surely more so… and ignorance is no defence".
This is a great article. It really puts it plainly where we're headed..and we've only a 100 years to sort it out. Our grandchildren will curse us!
Well said Andrew. Hard to believe that this article is filed under 'International' – this should be front page news, every damn Sunday, until people, politicians and the rest wake up and do something! Look at the front of the Irish Times today, some non-story about minor scuffles over the management of the IPCC being hyped up so that, to the casual observer, you'd think they were saying climate change wasn't real. What a sick joke. This same rubbish was recycled on Morning Ireland, where their interviewer seemed determined (bless her innocent heart) to uncover fraud and misdeeds at the heart of climate science. Well done to Gibbons for banging on and on when people have their heads firmly in the sand, determined not to listen. But why is he the only one? That's what's so crazy.
It's a bit ridiculous comparing the scientific certainty of evolution with climate change. The IPCC forth report concluded a 90% probability. Show me the scientist who thinks evolution isn't 99.9999999999999999999% probable.
The problem is that science works on probabilities. Instead of journalists explaining these things they just dumb it all down to lazy rhetoric.
Oh yeah and the comparison to the body temperature is unscientific. It would be the same as a skeptic using a comparison, where a change of a small amout of degrees is barely even noticeable, for example the temperature of your bath.
Well Breako, you would certainly know a thing or two about what you call "lazy rhetoric", considering this is exactly what you and people like you are peddling. Even the denier-in-chief Bjorn Lomborg has thrown in the towel on telling lies about climate change and climate science. How about you too, breako? Guess not; far easier to hide like a coward behind a pseudonym and slag off actual journalists of standing who are prepared to tell it like it is. Give us a break, breako, and read a few reputable books on climate science, then come back and tell us how everyone else except you has got it all wrong!
I read this article on Sunday. I re-read it the following day, and for the third time last night. I feel sick to the pit of my stomach. I've spent several hours online in the last three days, trying to figure out whether this article is simply off the deep end and scaremongering, you get lots of that in the media. But it's actually true. I bought Six Degrees, the book by Mark Lynas that the article refers to, and read nearly 100 pages last night, and barely slept afterwards. This is for real alright. How did I not know this, how could I not have known something this big?
Andrew Flood, while I agree with you entirely about this article, nowhere does John Gibbons suggest we have 100 years, or anything like it, to turn this crisis around. What he's setting out is that, on current path, we will all be toast within a hundred years, who knows, probably quite a bit sooner. Nice to think we can fix this at some convenient 'future date', but that's clearly no longer the case. The time to address this crisis is today, yesterday, 20 years ago, and even now, nobody has the interest or inclination, so as the article says, we've made our choice, get ready for a bumpy ride to end all rides.
Liam, I think you are one of those people who makes up his mind about Lomborg without reading any of his books.
He has always accepted anthropogenic climate change. You are now making up your mind about what he has changed his mind on before you have read his new book. You can't have read it because its not published yet. Why not do some research before coming up with lazy opinions?
Also, you'll notice I gave specific examples of where I thought John was engaging in rhetoric. You accuse me of doing this but can't give one example where I have.
Perhaps you could also be a bit more specific about "rhetoric" I am using.
With the greatest of respect to the Tribune, (which considers itself a paper of fact), I think it would be better if a respected scientist wrote about scientific issues. The science behind climate change is extremly complex and based on a lot of mathematical complexitiy. I think John misunderstands a lot of what he is writing about. AFAIK he has no scientific qualification.
Part of the problem with climate change is that the media over simplifies it. What they should be doing is explaining it scientifically and using credible sources. In fact, they have a responsibility to do this.
Comments are moderated by our editors, so there may be a delay between submission and publication of your comment. Offensive or abusive comments will not be published. Please note that your IP address (204.236.235.245) will be logged to prevent abuse of this feature. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions
Subscribe to The Sunday Tribune’s RSS feeds. Learn more.
Well done to the Sunday Tribune for highlighting the extraordinary climate calamity that is now, quite literally, just around the corner as a result of our collective failure to understand, to heed repeated scientific warnings, and to act when we had the chance.
Elsewhere in the Tribune, Shane Coleman writes: "...there is precious little debate (in Ireland) about the really important issues, aside from generalities...". It's a pity Shane and others, while writing eloquently about the sandcastles on the proverbial beach, have failed to notice the tsunami gathering strength and racing silently towards the shore.
I heard some knuckle-head FF politician on RTE Radio 1 yesterday morning referring to this story, but in a jokey, "shure Oirland will be de last place shtandin' and we'll be de kings of de world!". Heaven help us when this is what passes for debate on the National Station.