When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job

[Electric Monk]

(cross-posted from GD)

Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it.


[font size=-1]In the photo: Glaciologist Jason Box, left, at work on the Petermann Glacier on Greenland's northwest coast, which has lost mass at an accelerated pace in recent years. Box and his family left Ohio State for Europe a couple years ago, and he is relieved to have escaped America's culture of climate-change denial (Photo: Nick Cobbing).[/font]

--

The incident was small, but Jason Box doesn't want to talk about it. He's been skittish about the media since it happened. This was last summer, as he was reading the cheery blog posts transmitted by the chief scientist on the Swedish icebreaker Oden, which was exploring the Arctic for an international expedition led by Stockholm University. "Our first observations of elevated methane levels, about ten times higher than in background seawater, were documented . . . we discovered over 100 new methane seep sites.... The weather Gods are still on our side as we steam through a now ice-free Laptev Sea...."

As a leading climatologist who spent many years studying the Arctic at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at Ohio State, Box knew that this breezy scientific detachment described one of the nightmare long-shot climate scenarios: a feedback loop where warming seas release methane that causes warming that releases more methane that causes more warming, on and on until the planet is incompatible with human life. And he knew there were similar methane releases occurring in the area. On impulse, he sent out a tweet.

"If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd."

The tweet immediately went viral, inspiring a series of headlines:

CLIMATOLOGIST SAYS ARCTIC CARBON RELEASE COULD MEAN "WE'RE FUCKED."

CLIMATE SCIENTIST DROPS THE F-BOMB AFTER STARTLING ARCTIC DISCOVERY.

CLIMATOLOGIST: METHANE PLUMES FROM THE ARCTIC MEAN WE'RE SCREWED.

Box has been outspoken for years. He's done science projects with Greenpeace, and he participated in the 2011 mass protest at the White House organized by 350.org. In 2013, he made headlines when a magazine reported his conclusion that a seventy-foot rise in sea levels over the next few centuries was probably already "baked into the system." Now, with one word, Box had ventured into two particularly dangerous areas. First, the dirty secret of climate science and government climate policies is that they're all based on probabilities, which means that the effects of standard CO2 targets like an 80 percent reduction by 2050 are based on the middle of the probability curve. Box had ventured to the darker possibilities on the curve's tail, where few scientists and zero politicians are willing to go.

...more...
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

[Mnemosyne]

1. It is as bad as many have suspected. Actual death threats made! More from OP's link:

snip>>

Worse, he showed emotion, a subject ringed with taboos in all science but especially in climate science. As a recent study from the University of Bristol documented, climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labeled "alarmists," retreating into a world of charts and data. But Box had been able to resist all that. He even chased the media splash in interviews with the Danish press, where they translated "we're fucked" into its more decorous Danish equivalent, "on our ass," plastering those dispiriting words in large-type headlines all across the country.

snip>>

"And yet, despite some encouraging developments in renewable energy and some breakthroughs in international leadership, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate, and for their pains the scientists themselves—the cruelest blow of all—have been the targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies."

snip>>

Among climate activists, gloom is building. Jim Driscoll of the National Institute for Peer Support just finished a study of a group of longtime activists whose most frequently reported feeling was sadness, followed by fear and anger. Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a practicing psychiatrist and graduate of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth slide-show training, calls this "pretraumatic" stress. "So many of us are exhibiting all the signs and symptoms of posttraumatic disorder—the anger, the panic, the obsessive intrusive thoughts." Leading activist Gillian Caldwell went public with her "climate trauma," as she called it, quitting the group she helped build and posting an article called "16 Tips for Avoiding Climate Burnout," in which she suggests compartmentalization: "Reinforce boundaries between professional work and personal life. It is very hard to switch from the riveting force of apocalyptic predictions at work to home, where the problems are petty by comparison."

snip>>

[link:http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/]

Bold is mine.

Anyone that believes this isn't also being done to other scientists observing major ongoing events is extremely naive. This article is absolutely chilling.

Thanks EM.

[RiverLover]

4. "all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies."

This should be front page news.

[sue4e3]

2. Didn't we just have this article posted

Yes we are all going to die

[RiverLover]

5. Read the article.

Please.

[sue4e3]

6. I did, twice now

The premise is always the same, we're all gonna die, more than likely all at the same time, not sure when but sooner than expected and it makes people sad.

[RiverLover]

7. Sad...Its about how scientists aren't supposed to convey exactly how dire it is. Jeesh.

And when one scientist had the temerity to say, "we're fucked", the shit hit the fan....powered by fossil fuel companies.

Read it again. Please. It isn't another article about how sustainable life on the planet in the near future is unlikely, its about how scientists are being bullied into not saying exactly how fucked we are...

Worse, he showed emotion, a subject ringed with taboos in all science but especially in climate science. As a recent study from the University of Bristol documented, climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labeled "alarmists,"

Read it again.

[sue4e3]

8. If that's how you feel

I think that was mentioned around the edges to regurgitate that we're all gonna die, most likely all at the same time. We don't know when (In an up tick we think we're getting closer to the possible how) but we know it will be sooner than expected and it makes every one sad. Frankly I can understand why the reception to this news is not warm or welcome whether it's fact or not. I'm not replying again, as I don't see a point

[RiverLover]

9. Its ok you don't get this isn't regurgitating. Its insight into what scientists deal with,

I tried.

[truebrit71]

3. Sobering article...

...FWIW Gavin Schmidt sounds like he's in denial...not about the science, but the reality of what the science means...

[LouisvilleDem]

10. Gavin Schmidt is not in denial

He simple disagrees with Jason Box. The simple fact is that Schmidt is well known as one of the world's leading climate scientists with a great deal more credibility than Box has. Reading the IPCC AR5, it is clear that the opinions that Box expresses are outliers among scientists.

[truebrit71]

11. "You don't have to close down all the coal-powered stations tomorrow. You can transition."

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Denial.

More denial ' "And the rising oceans? Bangladesh is almost underwater now. Do a hundred million people have to move?

"Well, yeah. Under business as usual. But I don't think we're fucked."

Resource wars, starvation, mass migrations . . .

"Bad things are going to happen. What can you do as a person? You write stories. I do science. You don't run around saying, 'We're fucked! We're fucked! We're fucked!' It doesn't—it doesn't incentivize anybody to do anything." '

Total denial as to the reality of the fact that 100,000,000.00 people will have to move. Pretty sure THEIR lives will be fucked...

It is pretty clear from reading this article that Box knows what he is talking about, and he has finally discovered that the middle-of-the-road course that the IPCC has taken is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too conservative as all sorts of things are happening much sooner than anyone had predicted in almost every instance...

[LouisvilleDem]

12. He isn't denying that 100 million people have to move

He just doesn't think that fact equates to saying "we're fucked". And he's right. In a world with over 7 billion people, having a 100 million of them move over a 50 year period is not something to get excited about.

[truebrit71]

13. But it's not going to be 100 million people over 50 years....

... there will be nothing pedestrian or measured about the relocation of the displaced. Hells bells they're having to do it now by the tens of thousands in Bangladesh!

He's being far too casual about all of the effects that Box is talking about, and critiquing the words or phrasing of the statements is akin to the old 'rearranging the deckchairs' motif...

We are indeed well and truly fucked, and arguing over the tone of that statement is bloody pointless.

[LouisvilleDem]

14. How many will it be then?

And is your number supported by peer reviewed literature?

[GliderGuider]

15. According to this study, it looks like over 200 million would be displaced by a 3-meter rise

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nations-megacities-face-20-feet-of-sea-level-rise-19217

They say 375 million would be affected by a rise of 6 meters. But populations tend to cluster closer to the coasts, so over half that number would be affected by a rise of half that amount. If Hansen is right (his latest paper (12-page PDF, 300+ references) is undergoing on-line peer review now) a rise of 3 meters in under 40 years is highly probable.

So the estimates seem to be converging on ~250 million displaced people within 40 years. This number will become more stable as more research is done. For now it seems quite reasonable, especially if one adds +/-25% error bars to both the number and the time.

[LouisvilleDem]

16. Those numbers are not supported by the evidence

I don't care how many references Hansen's paper has, unless we see an enormous change in sea level rise in the next few years, all that paper will prove to be is wild speculation. Just do the math. A rise of 3 meters in the next 40 years means a rise of 7.5cm every year from then until now. Given that sea levels are currently rising at around 3.5mm a year, Hansen is predicting a 20x increase in what we are currently observing. The bottom line here is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If we see a massive increase in sea level rise I will have no problem admitting I was wrong, but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask to wait one or two years to see if Hansen's predictions start to pan out.

The question is, if we fail to see the type of increases you've described, will you admit you were wrong?

[GliderGuider]

17. Remember the shape of an exponential curve?

Last edited Fri Jul 24, 2015, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

We have the skills to determine that we are on one, even when we are on the lower, flatter part of the curve where the slope doesn't seem meaningful to the lay observer. Your analysis is simplistic.

[LouisvilleDem]

18. It doesn't make enough of a difference

The paper indicates that Hansen believes that ice melt is doubling every 10-40 years. Let's take the low end (most rapid doubling) of 10 years and figure out where we end up. Sea level increases are currently at 3.5mm per year. A doubling every 10 years brings us to 7mm in 10 years, 14mm in 20 years, 28mm in 30 years, and 56mm in 40 years. In other words, even with the most extreme case of exponential growth presented in the paper you can't get even close to a growth rate sufficient to get you to 3 meters of rise in 40 years.

On edit: If you do the calculations, you'll see that in order to reach a total of 3m in 40 years we would have to see a doubling of sea level rise about every 5 years. Given that fact, will you be willing to say you were wrong if the next two or three years don't put us on track to do that?

[GliderGuider]

19. What the paper says:

Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions, 5–9 m, if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario A1B that has CO2 ~ 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected against such large sea level rise.

Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed. Amplifying feedbacks, including slowdown of SMOC and cooling of the near-Antarctic ocean surface with increasing sea ice, may spur nonlinear growth of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Deep submarine valleys in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin of East Antarctica, each with access to ice amounting to several meters of sea level, provide gateways to the ocean. If the Southern Ocean forcing (subsurface warming) of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to grow, it likely will become impossible to avoid sea level rise of several meters, with the largest uncertainty being how rapidly it will occur.

5-9 meters in 85 years...

Keep in mind that he's using SRES A1B, not A1FI (~RCP8.5) which is a more probable scenario for the next 40 years. I also think the possibility of methane feedbacks must be considered at this point.

So I'm content that 3m by 2055 is indeed possible. It may not happen, because that represents a LOT of added water and heat. However, it's not being dismissed out of hand by Hansen et al, so I won't dismiss it out of hand either. Certainly not just because it makes you feel aggrieved.

[AuntPatsy]

20. Matter of time, we are fucked