Technological progress doesn't matter if we don't stop Climate Change, Now

Thu, 06/12/2008 - 12:41pm — Max Marmer

Technologies

Technological progress doesn't matter if we don't stop Climate Change. All the amazing, over-zealous promises of the Singularity are a moot point, even if true, if we can't stop climate change. Most government sanctioned reports are very conservative and we are close to reaching a tipping point with positive feedback loops in the environment that could set humanity back hundreds of years if not wipe us out all together.

Scientists like to low-ball their estimates. The now-famous IPCC scenarios for the effects of climate change are already known to be woefully, unrealistically conservative (Freeman Dyson's recent comments notwithstanding). Arctic changes expected 20 years from now are happening now, and in North America the beginning of spring has already been pushed back by two weeks, which is enough to play havoc with the fertility cycle of many migratory birds (among other consequences). The worst-case scenarios used in public debate ignore some extremely worrisome factors, such as the possible release of oceanic methane from clathrates. If we're going to deal with this problem, we have to do it now, as in, within the term of your next government.

Science fiction writers, on the other hand, are generally optimistic—if not about the fate of humanity, then at least about the progress of technology. The ultimate in technological optimism is the idea of the technological singularity, which posits that technological advance is exponential and, driven by progress in artificial intelligence, will soon hit the vertical slope of the curve.

Maybe. In fact, let's assume that this mythology is true and, within about 25 years, computers will exceed human intelligence and rapidly bootstrap themselves to godlike status. At that point, they will aid us (or run roughshod over us [see the debate of geoengineering here - Ed]) to transform the Earth into a paradise .

Here's the problem: 25 years is too late.

Abstract:

Source:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008107.html

Comments

Sun, 06/15/2008 - 2:13pm — jorgemata

The IPCC scenarios are "woefully, unrealistically conservative"

Regarding "Scientists like to low-ball their estimates. The now-famous IPCC scenarios for the effects of climate change are already known to be woefully, unrealistically conservative," let me cite James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who published in 2003 a job titled "Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?" [1]:

However, are the IPCC scenarios necessary or even plausible? There are reasons to believe that the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic. First, they ignore changes in emissions, some already underway, due to concerns about global warming. Second, they assume that true air pollution will continue to get worse, with O3, CH4 and black carbon all greater in 2050 than in 2000. Third, they give short shrift to technology advances that can reduce emissions in the next 50 years.

An alternative way to define scenarios is to examine current trends in climate forcing agents, to ask why they are changing as observed, and to try to understand whether there are reasonable actions that could encourage further changes in the growth rates. Precise data are available for trends of the long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are well-mixed in the atmosphere, i.e., CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs.

[...]

This "current trends" growth rate of climate forcings, i.e., 2 W/m2 in 50 years, is at the low end of the IPCC range of 2-4 W/m2. The IPCC scenario of 4 W/m2 requires a 4% per year exponential growth rate of CO2 emissions for 50 years and large growth of air pollution. The 4 W/m2 scenario yields dramatic climate change for the media to fixate upon, but it is implausible.

According to this, in 2003 the "growth rate of climate forcings" was "at the low end" of the IPCC range.

Since then, Hansen's team published a sensitivity of 0.67 K per W/m2, [2] ***smaller*** than a previous value of about 0.75 K per W/m2. [3].

It seems to me that GISS is adapting their figures to increasing knowledge of how the climate system works. If that means you must lower your estimates, you must do so, even if you are even more convinced of carbon emissions' responsibility in the warming than you were before. Hansen said in [3]:

Global surface temperature increased in the past century by more than 0.5°C (1, 2). This warming is, at least in part, a result of anthropogenic climate forcing agents (3).

I think he is much more forceful now. He wouldn't say now that "at least in part." But he is changing his figures as needed to adapt to better data.

J M

References

[1] James Hansen: Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?. Natural Science, Aug 01, 2003. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

[2] Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252. Page 1432.

[3] Hansen, J.E., and Mki. Sato, 2001: Trends of measured climate forcing agents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 98, 14778-14783, doi:10.1073/pnas.261553698.

Hypotheses that reference this signal:

This signal has no hypotheses. Add a hypothesis

Forecasts that reference this signal:

This signal has no forecasts. Add a forecast

Options